Horachek's impact on the team

[Al14]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

Which players aren't deeply flawed?  Other than arguably generational talents, all players are flawed.  Deeply or not, and that's subjective anyway.

Mats Sundin is in the Hall of Fame.  But it wasn't until his 9th NHL season when he was 28 that he had a successful team and went deep into the playoffs.  Was he a deeply flawed player?  Was he a problem up until the team got better?  Or is that only these guys?

Fact is that there are tons of good to great to elite players throughout NHL history who, for one reason or another, did not have team success.  There's only so much 1 or 2 or 3 players can do for an NHL team's fortunes if the team itself is not good overall - with perhaps the one exception to that being goaltenders.

You do realize that you aren't doing your argument any favors by trying to draw a comparison between Kessel/Phaneuf and Sundin?

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

I hope it's not limited to Phaneuf and Kessel.  They are the highest paid part of "the core."  I consider Bozak, JvR, Lupul, Gardiner, Reimer, Bernier, and Kadri, to be the rest of "the core."  Franson was also, but, he's gone already!

I would listen to offers on all the names I've listed above, not just Kessel and Phaneuf.  The only one I would hesitate to trade, at this point, would be Kadri.  The others can go if we are receiving good value in return IMHO.

 

[herman]

[Neither] Kessel or Phaneuf, nor them together, are worth trying to build a team around.  You think they are; I think they are not, and I further think most people agree with me, and that now MLSE management does too. 

As it stands now, I would agree with you; since we have been unable to surround our current top players with even better players (so they can slot into the more fitting 2nd/3rd slots), it would be better to move them for good controllable assets that can grow and develop (the right way) together. If we stumble upon a legit 1C (McDavid!), then I can see Kessel being more valuable on the team, rather than spun off for assets, but that would be an asinine gamble from a planning and management perspective to ignore good offers banking on a <10% chance. I don't think we should just dump them at the first opportunity for chump change either.

 

[Chris]

It would all depend on what the potential return is on those guys.  I'd have no trouble moving them if the return was good but if you would be selling really low I wouldn't have a problem keeping them either (provided they don't need to for cap reasons).  I'd basically be looking to invest everything I could into the drafting/development aspects of the team.  There's no easy answer to anything though.

I don't think there's one way to go or path to set the team on other than try to make as many smart decisions as possible.  If you finish worst or not, the best teams have shown an ability to consistently draft well (with the exception of the Rangers I guess) whether they finish high or low in the draft.  Get a management system in place where the entire organization is in lock-step: you're bringing in players who will be able to play the style you want from juniors on up.  They don't all have to be one kind of player, just have the ability to fit in.  I've said it before, but this was basically Dubas' philosophy with the Greyhounds - careful drafting, careful signings, careful hirings which all meshed together seamlessly.  He was able to bring in not only skilled players, but he did due diligence on the people behind the players as well (or so he says anyway, I don't know).

Now that's a lot harder in the NHL, but the team should be thinking long-term anyway.  It's not super specific, but I don't think anyone can really be at this point.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of a "management system in place where the entire organization is in lock-step". Have felt for a while now that the types of coaches hired by the Leafs have not been a good mesh with the type of talent being assembled by the GM. Everyone needs to be on the same page.

 

[Deebo]

If we stumble upon a legit 1C (McDavid!), then I can see Kessel being more valuable on the team, rather than spun off for assets, but that would be an asinine gamble from a planning and management perspective to ignore good offers banking on a <10% chance.

That draft lottery takes place shortly after the regular season ends, they won't have an opportunity to trade Kessel before they find out exactly where they are drafting.

 

[skrackle]

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

Hope you're right. I'm more than ready to jettison pretty much everyone and start fresh with draft picks - and watch a group of young, hungry, motivated players develop as a team.

Unfortunately it is going to take time. A long time.

Yeah, it is going to take a long time.

It's been a long time since Burke was hired/fired and Nonis hired until now. A rebuild should have happened during that time, but it didn't and well, here we are. That's about how long it's going to take again, in my estimation.

Kessel and Phaneuf are both in their prime right now. A case could be made for keeping them through a rebuild. The only way it could work is if the Leafs hit several grand slams in drafting elite NHL-ready talent over the next 2 or so seasons.

That seems unlikely, so I would be selling other teams on the value of Kessel and Phaneuf as excellent complimentary players and hopefully get the best return possible in picks and prospects.

I think it's more realistic to assume that Phaneuf and Kessel will be just about done by the time the Leafs are returning to respectability, so the return for those players should be maximized now.

 

[mr grieves]

You've been pretty vocal about this "core issue". I'm wondering if you'd care to share your thoughts on the "best approach". If this was your team to manage, would you be trying to trade "the core" and start over? Or would you try to retool around Kessel, Phaneuf, JVR, etc? Would winning the draft lottery change your approach?

I think the only folks for whom McDavid wouldn't change their approach would be those who still believe management's old line that this is a team that's had success before and promises to have more any day now (none of those left) and those who are so disgusted with the team that they'd want to jettison everyone because of the embarrassments of the last few seasons and burn the whole thing down (more of those lately).

If the Leafs clear out the older parts (Lupul, Phaneuf) and win the lottery, 2 seasons from now they could have the following line-up (approx ages there, approx core bolded, and not accounting for whatever decent prospect return they might get in Phaneuf and Lupul trades)...

JvR (27) - Kadri (26) - Kessel (29)
[UFA] - McDavid (20) - Nylander (21)
Panik (26) - Holland (26) - Komarov (30)
[assorted parts]

Rielly (23) - Gardiner (26)
??? - [UFA]
etc.

I mean... Spotty defense (maybe Percy comres along?) and needs some more two-way talent (liking JvR less and less lately), but I'd be pretty happy with that team. The core loses Phaneuf, Lupul, Bozak and gains Nylander, and McDavid.

Looking back: I don't think Phaneuf and Kessel are or have been the problems with the core. I think the other members of the core in their age cohort -- JvR, Lupul, Bozak -- weren't good enough to be part of any team's core, and some of the pieces that look like they could be -- Kadri, Gardiner, and Rielly -- were a few years behind, either because of age or development (JvR's about Kadri's age, but he's been in the league longer, which might count for something). Add to a flawed and poorly timed core the bad habit of downgrading the surrounding players (Grabo, MacArthur, Kulimen, Colborne, and cheaper more useful UFAs they could've signed for Clarkson, Bolland, Orr, McLaren, etc.) and it's not shocking the Leafs have had no success.

But, if McDavid falls in your lap, I think that changes the dynamic of the core. And if the new management philosophy is to not blunder into commitments of roster space and cap dollars to 'grit' and 'compete,' I think that changes the dynamic of the team overall.

 

[Bullfrog]

...Looking back: I don't think Phaneuf and Kessel are or have been the problems with the core. I think the other members of the core in their age cohort -- JvR, Lupul, Bozak -- weren't good enough to be part of any team's core, and some of the pieces that look like they could be -- Kadri, Gardiner, and Rielly -- were a few years behind, either because of age or development (JvR's about Kadri's age, but he's been in the league longer, which might count for something). ..

Perhaps I'm not understanding, but JvR is currently 25 years old (26 soon) and is on pace for 28 goals in an otherwise brutal season for the team. He hit 30 last season and was on pace for 31 in the shortened season. Cap number is only 4.25M.

I'm pretty sure he's good enough for just about any team's "core."

 

[Chris]

Perhaps I'm not understanding, but JvR is currently 25 years old (26 soon) and is on pace for 28 goals in an otherwise brutal season for the team. He hit 30 last season and was on pace for 31 in the shortened season. Cap number is only 4.25M.

I'm pretty sure he's good enough for just about any team's "core."

Have you *watched* JVR play the past couple of months? He has looked anything like a core player. It's hard to tell who's been worse, him or Kessel.

 

[Kin]

Perhaps I'm not understanding, but JvR is currently 25 years old (26 soon) and is on pace for 28 goals in an otherwise brutal season for the team. He hit 30 last season and was on pace for 31 in the shortened season. Cap number is only 4.25M.

I'm pretty sure he's good enough for just about any team's "core."

Have you *watched* JVR play the past couple of months? He has looked anything like a core player. It's hard to tell who's been worse, him or Kessel.

Sure, but as you say Kessel's looked awful too and nobody is would doubt that Kessel is still fundamentally, a pretty good player.

 

[Kin]

I think the only folks for whom McDavid wouldn't change their approach would be those who still believe management's old line that this is a team that's had success before and promises to have more any day now (none of those left) and those who are so disgusted with the team that they'd want to jettison everyone because of the embarrassments of the last few seasons and burn the whole thing down (more of those lately).

I think there's a pretty reasonable third group who looks at your hypothetical roster and sees basically half a team. There's no defense there and the issue of goaltending is ignored completely.

McDavid is probably going to be a good player, there's no doubt about that and he might very well be a great one but even if the Leafs win the lottery is the situation he should come into one where there's immediate pressure on him to be great? Where rather than grow and develop with other young stars he's going to be asked to suit his game to playing with the fairly narrow skill set of Phil Kessel? Leave aside the practical realities of that, is that the best environment to bring a kid into? Regardless of talent, that seems like doing everything in the team's possible to see that Connor McDavid fails.

The nature of the sport being what it is McDavid could be great and still duck his head on one entry and see his career ended. That's why whatever plan they commit to, whatever results we see out of the draft lottery, it has to be one that isn't dependent on any one player joining the team or doing one specific thing.

 

[Chris]

Perhaps I'm not understanding, but JvR is currently 25 years old (26 soon) and is on pace for 28 goals in an otherwise brutal season for the team. He hit 30 last season and was on pace for 31 in the shortened season. Cap number is only 4.25M.

I'm pretty sure he's good enough for just about any team's "core."

Have you *watched* JVR play the past couple of months? He has looked anything like a core player. It's hard to tell who's been worse, him or Kessel.

Sure, but as you say Kessel's looked awful too and nobody is would doubt that Kessel is still fundamentally, a pretty good player.

I feel both are good players, but something is wrong. Not sure what that is...is it attitude? Work ethic? Too much pressure for them in Toronto? Whatever it is, the collapse has become a seasonal thing and they've both been a big part of it. I'd rather not bring a bunch of young players (including a McDavid) into that environment.

 

[Kin]

I feel both are good players, but something is wrong. Not sure what that is...is it attitude? Work ethic? Too much pressure for them in Toronto? Whatever it is, the collapse has become a seasonal thing and they've both been a big part of it. I'd rather not bring a bunch of young players (including a McDavid) into that environment.

I tend to be a believer of simple answers. They're not a very good team and their record reflects it. That's what's wrong. Anyway, if Kessel "isn't the problem" neither is JVR and that's what BF was referring to.

I think Mats Sundin, whose name got pretty liberally thrown out earlier, is a pretty good example of how for young players with the skill and drive to succeed the environment they're brought into is largely immaterial. Especially if the team is making positive strides towards improving things.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

Personally I don't think so.  Look at what he has to work with!

The same thing Randy had to work with and he had a better record.

 

[Highlander]

Lots of changes have been made and are going to be made. Obviously some of what we consider our core players may soon be gone: Phanuef, Bozak, Lupul, maybe Bernier.
However I do think we need to let the new coach and they new players assume their positions and give Kessel and JVR a reload pass for the beginning of next year.
A 1st line of JVR, McDavid and Kessel could be very formidable

 

[dappleganger]

Lots of changes have been made and are going to be made. Obviously some of what we consider our core players may soon be gone: Phanuef, Bozak, Lupul, maybe Bernier.
However I do think we need to let the new coach and they new players assume their positions and give Kessel and JVR a reload pass for the beginning of next year.
A 1st line of JVR, McDavid and Kessel could be very formidable

I think there is something to be said for having McDavid play with JVR and Kessel. Two guys who've had success at the NHL level (at least individually) could do wonders for his confidence and hopefully not have an Edmonton situation where you have a bunch of talented young guys with no veteran support.

If JVR and Kessel can get back to their scoring ways the story will be less about McDavid. Hopefully it would take some of the pressure off the kid.

 

[mr grieves]

I think the only folks for whom McDavid wouldn't change their approach would be those who still believe management's old line that this is a team that's had success before and promises to have more any day now (none of those left) and those who are so disgusted with the team that they'd want to jettison everyone because of the embarrassments of the last few seasons and burn the whole thing down (more of those lately).

I think there's a pretty reasonable third group who looks at your hypothetical roster and sees basically half a team. There's no defense there and the issue of goaltending is ignored completely.

Yeah, the defense is thin -- as has been the case over the last few seasons when we only had Phaneuf as a legit, developed top 4 defenseman -- which I noted. And, yeah, I just skipped goal. Pretty sure Bernier and Reimer would be a serviceable duo. And, since goal is so difficult to pick top-tier talent for, just sorta let it go... But, yes. That's a reasonable third view, agreed.

McDavid is probably going to be a good player, there's no doubt about that and he might very well be a great one but even if the Leafs win the lottery is the situation he should come into one where there's immediate pressure on him to be great? Where rather than grow and develop with other young stars he's going to be asked to suit his game to playing with the fairly narrow skill set of Phil Kessel? Leave aside the practical realities of that, is that the best environment to bring a kid into? Regardless of talent, that seems like doing everything in the team's possible to see that Connor McDavid fails.

I dunno. Isn't this sort of the thing that happens with every NHL-ready, top-three pick? The teams they join are awful, otherwise those teams wouldn't be able to draft them. Only difference here is media hype, but I think that's overrated. I think the substantive question is whether the Leafs are nearer the Oilers -- forever foundering & no supporting cast, the better for the young star to be ruined -- or the Lightning or Penguins. I think there's enough young talent on this team, and think the new management group is savvy enough, that the situation would be nearer the latter examples, and the situation wouldn't be so toxic.

But for me the Kessel thing is separate from that. I wonder: are his skills really so limited? He's been slumping severely lately, so it seems so. But, the other 80% of the time, I find him a pretty impressive playmaker, especially for a guy pegged as a sniper. He's in the top 20 in assists over the last 3 seasons, and we've all seen plenty of cases where his passes can't be received by the mediocre talent around him... So, I'm sort of optimistic that he wouldn't hamper the development of what we're told is a generational talent.

But I do wonder about it for reasons other than whether he'd complement a player the Leafs are highly unlikely to get. If someone said the team would be good in 5 years, and the team's drafting position not too adversely affected by having a player of Kessel's calibre on the team, would the Leafs benefit from Kessel at 32 or 33? Out of his prime as a speedy sniper, would he still be an elite player? I'm not sure, but, based on what we've seen of him so far, I do think there are playmaking dimensions to his game that might last after he's past his prime as a scoring winger.

The nature of the sport being what it is McDavid could be great and still duck his head on one entry and see his career ended. That's why whatever plan they commit to, whatever results we see out of the draft lottery, it has to be one that isn't dependent on any one player joining the team or doing one specific thing.

Oh, agreed in principle... if not quite with the idea that anyone should plan for a career-killing injury to McDavid by evacuating all the talent. I take that to be a hyperbolic example cited to say no team should build its entire future around lone player.

The above thought experiment was only really applicable to  'what if they get McDavid?' If they don't, and are developing Strome or whoever, I think they shouldn't count on Phil being an essential and valuable component of the core when the team's good again. In which case, trade him after the lottery; even if the return isn't great, being a few spots higher in the draft for a couple more years will be better long term.

But I really like Kessel and think it's a sort of a shame they blew a great player's prime by committing to a mediocre core. Of course, that might've always been in the cards, since the best part of core probably shouldn't be a scoring winger, and having him might've prevented their getting ahold of the other essential pieces.

 

[Kin]

I dunno. Isn't this sort of the thing that happens with every NHL-ready, top-three pick? The teams they join are awful, otherwise those teams wouldn't be able to draft them. Only difference here is media hype, but I think that's overrated.

No, I think most top 3 picks are brought into situations where there's relatively less pressure to be good right away. Like you said, most teams picking in the top 3 are awful and generally don't have expectations of how good the line-up is going to look in two years time so as to make the most of the good players already on the team. Almost all top 3 picks are parts of multi-year rebuilding processes so there's less pressure on any one of them to be the huge impact player a team is looking for right away. Crosby came onto a team with Fleury and Malkin, Toews and Kane came up together, Stamkos and Hedman, etc.

But for me the Kessel thing is separate from that. I wonder: are his skills really so limited? He's been slumping severely lately, so it seems so. But, the other 80% of the time, I find him a pretty impressive playmaker, especially for a guy pegged as a sniper. He's in the top 20 in assists over the last 3 seasons, and we've all seen plenty of cases where his passes can't be received by the mediocre talent around him... So, I'm sort of optimistic that he wouldn't hamper the development of what we're told is a generational talent.

I think Kessel is a terrific player with the puck on his stick and space to work with. That's not a small thing and it's not insignificant but that is a fairly narrow set of circumstances. He's not a terrific defensive player, he's not a battle in the corners kind of guy, he's not someone you especially want out there when things get physical, he's not a stand in front guy and bang in loose pucks and so on. If the Leafs do have the good fortune to draft someone like Connor McDavid I really do think that you then want to focus on teaming him with players that fit into his game and cover for whatever deficiencies he may have.

Oh, agreed in principle... if not quite with the idea that anyone should plan for a career-killing injury to McDavid by evacuating all the talent. I take that to be a hyperbolic example cited to say no team should build its entire future around lone player.

It's not "planning for" an injury like that, it's acknowledging that it's a possibility and that whatever the team has planned should work regardless even with the obvious caveat that any such thing would delay whatever plan a team might have considerably.

The above thought experiment was only really applicable to  'what if they get McDavid?' If they don't, and are developing Strome or whoever, I think they shouldn't count on Phil being an essential and valuable component of the core when the team's good again. In which case, trade him after the lottery; even if the return isn't great, being a few spots higher in the draft for a couple more years will be better long term.

But I really like Kessel and think it's a sort of a shame they blew a great player's prime by committing to a mediocre core. Of course, that might've always been in the cards, since the best part of core probably shouldn't be a scoring winger, and having him might've prevented their getting ahold of the other essential pieces.

I would agree that if Kessel gets traded this off-season it would be unfortunate that his time in Toronto didn't go better. That said, his presence here is in and of itself a pretty solid testament to why teams shouldn't be looking for shortcuts to speed-up the rebuilding process.

The thing for me is when I look at that line-up you posted my immediate thought, aside from what I said about defense/goaltending, is that if you removed Kessel from that hypothetical and replaced him with a reasonable return/the kind of players that a smart use of 8 million dollars of suddenly free cap use could land you...how much less rosy would it look? Honestly, I'd argue not very. I know it's impossible but if the Leafs traded Kessel and then somehow won the Lottery I really wouldn't be lamenting the loss of Kessel too much.

 

[freer]

The only players I would keep

JVR, Kadri (I dislike his work ethic)
Panik (Hard worker and cheap)
Reilly, Polak (IMO would be a good team leader)

The rest need to go. I may keep Sill just because he tries every game.

 

[Al14]

The only players I would keep

JVR, Kadri (I dislike his work ethic)
Panik (Hard worker and cheap)
Reilly, Polak (IMO would be a good team leader)

The rest need to go. I may keep Sill just because he tries every game.

I dislike JvR's work ethic!

 

[Highlander]

What is work ethic?