Going Forward

[rdowdall]

It is a bit of an exaggeration.  The chances do present themselves to pick up a cornerstone player.  I guess the feeling I have was that it was easier pre-cap to turn your team around through trades.  It felt like you could fill multiple spots by picking up players from other teams through a trade.  So even though you can pick up that one player that could be a game changer, you need to have the other spots on your roster flushed out nowadays.

I don't know that there's any real difference. You're probably right that it was easier to add quality pieces via trade pre-cap becaue you had more teams who would suddenly need ot cut salary but the flipside to that is that free agency was so restrictive that it would be harder to add players that way. It was never a smart plan to think you could build without high draft picks but I don't think there's an appreciable change pre or post cap.

Yeah, you're probably right.  I had it in my head that teams like the Rangers and Colorado had been built through shrewd trades to win the cup, but if I look at it, they had a lot of core pieces that they had drafted.  Leetch and Richter in the Rangers case, and Sackic and Foote in the Colorado case. 

 

[L K]

It is a bit of an exaggeration.  The chances do present themselves to pick up a cornerstone player.  I guess the feeling I have was that it was easier pre-cap to turn your team around through trades.  It felt like you could fill multiple spots by picking up players from other teams through a trade.  So even though you can pick up that one player that could be a game changer, you need to have the other spots on your roster flushed out nowadays.

I don't know that there's any real difference. You're probably right that it was easier to add quality pieces via trade pre-cap becaue you had more teams who would suddenly need ot cut salary but the flipside to that is that free agency was so restrictive that it would be harder to add players that way. It was never a smart plan to think you could build without high draft picks but I don't think there's an appreciable change pre or post cap.

I don't know, it might just be a bias on my part but I feel like both trades and free agency are stunted in the cap era relative to previous.  I don't think it changes your point that draft picks were always really important but you just can't get those elite players as free agents/trades anymore.  I mean as much as Chicago has been gutted by the cap at times, it's really their complementary players who keep getting traded.  This might be the first year that they lost one of their "core" players in Patrick Sharp and really, he's probably more at the end of his peak productive levels and was going to be trending into a non-value player for Chicago anyway.

I mean one of our top free agents on the year this year was Matt Beleskey.

 

[Kin]

I don't know, it might just be a bias on my part but I feel like both trades and free agency are stunted in the cap era relative to previous.  I don't think it changes your point that draft picks were always really important but you just can't get those elite players as free agents/trades anymore.  I mean as much as Chicago has been gutted by the cap at times, it's really their complementary players who keep getting traded.  This might be the first year that they lost one of their "core" players in Patrick Sharp and really, he's probably more at the end of his peak productive levels and was going to be trending into a non-value player for Chicago anyway.

I mean one of our top free agents on the year this year was Matt Beleskey.

But it was never a common occurrence for really good players to change teams. What I'm saying is that if you divide the last twenty years into the ten years after the 94-95 lockout and the Cap Era that you'd probably have better free agents changing teams in the Cap era then you would between 1995-2004. Chara, Niedermayer, Stastny, Richards, Hossa(twice), Kovalchuk, Suter, Parise and so on.

And some pretty good players have been dealt. Pronger, Nash, Kessel(twice), Thornton, Seguin, Hossa, Richards(either one), Carter....

Additionally, I didn't include any of them in the above lists but what you're also seeing is young players who have the potential to be big parts of teams getting forced out because of cap issues. Sharp is the first case of Chicago losing a member of their core, sure, but they've lost a bunch of guys like Saad or Byfuglien or Ladd who either went on to become pretty legit first line players or sure seem able to. I think that's something we're going to see a lot more of, especially when all of the back diving deals end and players are getting paid a more honest AAV.

 

[jonlleafs]

I think it probably depends on how good Stamkos looks this year as well as what he'd actually want to sign here.

I think you'd have to start looking into trading one of Nylander/Marner though.

Why would you need to trade either one?  You could just keep them all.  Makes no sense to get rid of top blue chip prospects like that.  Teams can't win with just 3 top players.  Last I checked you have 4 lines on a team.

 

[Kin]

I think it probably depends on how good Stamkos looks this year as well as what he'd actually want to sign here.

I think you'd have to start looking into trading one of Nylander/Marner though.

Why would you need to trade either one?  You could just keep them all.  Makes no sense to get rid of top blue chip prospects like that.  Teams can't win with just 3 top players.  Last I checked you have 4 lines on a team.

Because the last time I checked, teams also have positions called "defensemen" and "goaltenders" and being strong there matters quite a bit. Remember, this situation would see the Leafs have Stamkos, Mathews, Marner and Nylander. Not to mention other first round forwards in the system like Kapanen and Gauthier.

By comparison, outside of the NHL the Leafs don't really have any blue chip defensive prospects. Adding Stamkos and Mathews would probably advance the rebuild to the point where you couldn't reliably count on the kind of draft position where you can draft elite defense prospects so trading one of the forwards for a comparable defensive prospect would go a long way to building the sort of well-rounded team that actually wins things.

 

[lamajama]

The only reason Stamkos would come is money - which probably means $12-$14m and that is going to hamstring the rest of the team because the Cap isn't significantly increasing over the next number of years.

It's all a pipe dream. Why leave an actual Cup contender, playing in a no-income tax State, plus weather, plus relative anonymity. Unless his ego is over the top which is does not appear to be the case so it's back to money. And significantly more than TB will offer.

 

[jonlleafs]

I think it probably depends on how good Stamkos looks this year as well as what he'd actually want to sign here.

I think you'd have to start looking into trading one of Nylander/Marner though.

Why would you need to trade either one?  You could just keep them all.  Makes no sense to get rid of top blue chip prospects like that.  Teams can't win with just 3 top players.  Last I checked you have 4 lines on a team.

Because the last time I checked, teams also have positions called "defensemen" and "goaltenders" and being strong there matters quite a bit. Remember, this situation would see the Leafs have Stamkos, Mathews, Marner and Nylander. Not to mention other first round forwards in the system like Kapanen and Gauthier.

By comparison, outside of the NHL the Leafs don't really have any blue chip defensive prospects. Adding Stamkos and Mathews would probably advance the rebuild to the point where you couldn't reliably count on the kind of draft position where you can draft elite defense prospects so trading one of the forwards for a comparable defensive prospect would go a long way to building the sort of well-rounded team that actually wins things.

How did trading Tukka Rask for goaltending help now (now at that time) work out for us?  Just because we thought we had 2 outstanding goalies doesn't mean one is expendable.  Why not just keep all of them and try to develop in-house or draft defensive help?  You say we have no defense and goaltending but I see Bibeau and Sparks down in the farm and some workable defensemen.  Not to mention we already have Rielly and Gardiner if you're going to counter that we don't have any elite puck-moving defense.  So really your points are moot.  I would rather keep all blue chip prospects and grow them ourselves.  Stamkos would just expedite our ability to contend. 

 

[Highlander]

If we trade for Stamkos he is going to take away Nylander and host of other prospects and picks?not worth it unless he is completely unrestricted.

 

[Kin]

How did trading Tukka Rask for goaltending help now (now at that time) work out for us?

It's not a comparable situation. Stamkos is an elite center. Not a prospect.

Why not just keep all of them and try to develop in-house or draft defensive help?

For years people said the Leafs could develop or draft elite players without being at the top of the draft. How'd that work out?

You say we have no defense and goaltending but I see Bibeau and Sparks down in the farm and some workable defensemen.  Not to mention we already have Rielly and Gardiner if you're going to counter that we don't have any elite puck-moving defense.

I didn't say we had "no" goaltending or defense. I said that outside of the NHL we had no blue chip prospects at either spot, no matter how "workable" you might think Stuart Percy is or how much you like some of the goalies taken in the 6th and 7th rounds. That's just undeniably true.

And if you think Gardiner is an elite defenseman, I don't know what to tell you.

I would rather keep all blue chip prospects and grow them ourselves.

I'd like to eat a Sundae made of rainbows. But if we're being realistic about things, we'd probably have to diversify the prospect base if we're going to speed up the process by adding Stamkos and Mathews.

 

[skrackle]

If we trade for Stamkos he is going to take away Nylander and host of other prospects and picks?not worth it unless he is completely unrestricted.

Trading for Stamkos? I wouldn't do it, based on the Leafs current state. So yes, Stamkos as a Leaf only makes sense if he's an UFA at the end of the season.

There just isn't a pool of assets in the system that the Leafs can afford to give up and that Tampa would take in a potential Stamkos trade. It wouldn't be a 5 scrubs for Grabner move. The only scenario that I would imagine the Leafs acquiring Stamkos is as a UFA. Even then, it's an attempt to accelerate a proper rebuild beyond what might be the best course of development for where the Leafs are.

Since players like Stamkos almost never make it to UFA status, the Leafs might be wise to make an exception to conventional rebuild strategy if he wants to play in Toronto.

 

[jonlleafs]

If we trade for Stamkos he is going to take away Nylander and host of other prospects and picks?not worth it unless he is completely unrestricted.

Trading for Stamkos? I wouldn't do it, based on the Leafs current state. So yes, Stamkos as a Leaf only makes sense if he's an UFA at the end of the season.

There just isn't a pool of assets in the system that the Leafs can afford to give up and that Tampa would take in a potential Stamkos trade. It wouldn't be a 5 scrubs for Grabner move. The only scenario that I would imagine the Leafs acquiring Stamkos is as a UFA. Even then, it's an attempt to accelerate a proper rebuild beyond what might be the best course of development for where the Leafs are.

Since players like Stamkos almost never make it to UFA status, the Leafs might be wise to make an exception to conventional rebuild strategy if he wants to play in Toronto.

I agree with you on all points here.  I would sign Stamkos only if he is a UFA.  Trading for  Stamkos would be prohibitively expensive and would really just set us back in the rebuild anyways.  I don't know if we ruin the rebuild so much if we signed him as an UFA since I would think this year is probably the last year we would pick within the top 10 (if at all).  Regardless of what some people on here believe, I think we still have some useable talent on the team.  Last year was just an 18 wheeler dropping off a cliff because our best player wasn't a leader and a good influence on others.  The change in coaching staff was a huge blunder  at the time (although not so much now because it set us up to get Babcock and a major overhaul in the front office).  The whole city and media were so negative on the team, I think any good player would have wilted under the pressure of this city.

If say we get Matthews (big if) and we get Stamkos, I see us with a pretty competitive team.  We would most definitely see Nylander up with the big club next season and perhaps even Kapanen.  I personally think Nylander will tear up the AHL this year.  He just looks too fast and too good now.  I think Kadri will finally break through and will stay with the team.  Our team will look something like this next season:

JVR - Stamkos - Lupul
Nylander - Kadri - Parenteau/Grabner
Connor Brown/Kapanen - Bozak - Kapanen/Leipsic
Komarov - Holland - Winnik/Panik/Matthias

Rielly - Hunwick
Phaneuf - Gardiner
Polak - Marincin/Robidas/Percy/Harrington

 

[Andy007]

"Best player wasn't a leader and was not a good influence on the others."

Again, it's amazing how many people who know not an iota of inside (or outside, for that matter) information have no problem making sweeping, ridiculous statements like this.

 

[Tigger]

Opinions free with purchase of Steve Simmons engraved nose ring

 

[jonlleafs]

"Best player wasn't a leader and was not a good influence on the others."

Again, it's amazing how many people who know not an iota of inside (or outside, for that matter) information have no problem making sweeping, ridiculous statements like this.

I am strictly speaking on-ice performance only.  It was stated clearly before that people liked him in the locker room and I am not disputing that at all.  I have played ice hockey for almost 2 decades and at a fairly high level (against ex-college/NHL players) and I think I've learned a bit from playing and watching.  He's was the best player and if you watch him in the d zone, he doesn't battle for the puck and usually skates away from any altercation.  He's typically not the first guy back backchecking (although he did do it a couple of times to prevent a breakaway or some good scoring chance).  This is the type of influence I'm referring to.  And other guys see that there are no repercussions for this lack of effort playing d so the rest of the guys don't feel they need to either.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And other guys see that there are no repercussions for this lack of effort playing d so the rest of the guys don't feel they need to either.

Which Leafs players exactly are you talking about here? I'd be more concerned about the players who aren't scoring anywhere near point-per-game numbers and feel that because they think Kessel is putting in a lack of effort they don't need to either.

 

[bustaheims]

Later in the season, I made a point of watching Kessel when he had to backcheck. I never really felt that he was coasting or not putting in an effort. He's just not very good defensively. He always skated hard to get back to the defensive zone. He may not have been the first guy back, but he was almost never the last one, either. Did he shy away from altercations? Sure. He's not a physical player. Never has been, nor should be expected to be. Most of the time, he was covering the point, any way, so it's not like he was losing a ton of battles deep in the Leafs' zone.

He wasn't even the laziest defensive player on his line. That honour goes to Bozak, who would constantly coast back into the defensive zone - which was much more damaging, because he plays a much more important defensive position.

 

[Highlander]

I saw the same thing Busta.  Kessel always made the effort to skate back and Bozak will have to play a new tune as Babs won't stand for it.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm sure Carlyle didn't stand for it either. I think this whole idea of Babcock not putting up with things is a fallacy. What's more important is whether an individual player responds to the coaching.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm sure Carlyle didn't stand for it either. I think this whole idea of Babcock not putting up with things is a fallacy. What's more important is whether an individual player responds to the coaching.

I think the difference is that Babcock may actually make it appears as though there's some accountability. Carlyle certainly didn't with anyone other than Kadri or Gardiner. Carlyle didn't stand for it, I'm sure, but he also didn't seem to do anything significant about it - definitely nothing that was effective.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I'm sure Carlyle didn't stand for it either. I think this whole idea of Babcock not putting up with things is a fallacy. What's more important is whether an individual player responds to the coaching.

Absolutely, there is also something to be said to the type of game they are going to play.

I think previous coaches have been hamstrung somewhat by Bozak "having" to be with Phil and their unwillingness or inability to defend as a unit.

I think Babcock will have a very defined system and we will see players who don't stick to it, glued to the bench. I don't think there is a player or unit now that have more influence than the coach, I don't think that's been the case for a while, previous coaches have hinted at having to "accept" certain things.

I expect Babcock to put up with teething problems through the first twenty games or so, especially from the kids, after that I think he will wield the axe.