Kyle Dubas is new Leafs GM

[Phileas Fogg]

Winning the Cup is the hardest championship to win in pro sports.  In saying that name another team with more firepower than the Leafs this coming year?

1. No it's not, and 2. That isn't even close to what the quote was, so I don't understand the relevance of the question.

 

[Highlander]

Winning the Cup is the hardest championship to win in pro sports.  In saying that name another team with more firepower than the Leafs this coming year?

1. No it's not, and 2. That isn't even close to what the quote was, so I don't understand the relevance of the question.

Take a chill pill Bro.  It is heavily agreed that winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest professional trophy to win, no question,it is.  Also you seem to be saying that the Leafs are not on the verge of winning the Stanley Cup.  May not win it ever again, agreed, but now they have the firepower to score tons of points. Freddie is a pretty good Goalie and the D will be better. If they are not on the verge, who is?  or when do you think they may be on the "verge"?

 

[Kin]

Take a chill pill Bro.  It is heavily agreed that winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest professional trophy to win, no question,it is. 

Yes question. Why is winning the Stanley Cup harder than the World Series, for instance?

 

[Average Joes]

i don?t think hockey fares very well on difficulty in winning.

I don?t follow soccer and don?t really understand it but the UEFA Champions League has a ton of teams just competing to get into the league. That seems much harder than hockey.

In baseball you have to play far more games to win.

From my poor observation only I bet it takes longer to become competitive in baseball and football than hockey. The quick rebuilds are not as frequent.

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

Take a chill pill Bro.  It is heavily agreed that winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest professional trophy to win, no question,it is. 

Yes question. Why is winning the Stanley Cup harder than the World Series, for instance?

There are a few reasons. One is the difference between the MLB soft cap and the NHL hard cap system. In the MLB system any team is allowed to spend over the established annual cap but they are required to pay a luxury tax on the overage. Imagine if the leafs could go out and pick up the two best defencemen in the league and just pay a tax on the amount they are over the cap.
Secondly the nature of the game itself. In game seven of the World Series a player goes out with a broken ankle you replace him with one of the relief players on the bench. In game seven in the NHL playoffs a player is injured you finish the game one player short.
And finally in baseball for the most part the only time a player is injured by a member of the opposing team is by a wild pitch or a high slide. Imagine the catcher running back to the screen for a pop fly and the batter chases him and slams him into the screen just as he attempts the catch.

 

[L K]

Take a chill pill Bro.  It is heavily agreed that winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest professional trophy to win, no question,it is. 

Yes question. Why is winning the Stanley Cup harder than the World Series, for instance?

There are a few reasons. One is the difference between the MLB soft cap and the NHL hard cap system. In the MLB system any team is allowed to spend over the established annual cap but they are required to pay a luxury tax on the overage. Imagine if the leafs could go out and pick up the two best defencemen in the league and just pay a tax on the amount they are over the cap.
Secondly the nature of the game itself. In game seven of the World Series a player goes out with a broken ankle you replace him with one of the relief players on the bench. In game seven in the NHL playoffs a player is injured you finish the game one player short.
And finally in baseball for the most part the only time a player is injured by a member of the opposing team is by a wild pitch or a high slide. Imagine the catcher running back to the screen for a pop fly and the batter chases him and slams him into the screen just as he attempts the catch.

If a player gets banged up in baseball you pull them out of a game and they are done.  If a hockey player gets banged up they can sit on the bench for 20 minutes and then go back in the game.  I?m not sure how the ?play a man short? comparison is a reasonable argument there.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Winning the Cup is the hardest championship to win in pro sports.  In saying that name another team with more firepower than the Leafs this coming year?

1. No it's not, and 2. That isn't even close to what the quote was, so I don't understand the relevance of the question.

Take a chill pill Bro.  It is heavily agreed that winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest professional trophy to win, no question,it is.  Also you seem to be saying that the Leafs are not on the verge of winning the Stanley Cup.  May not win it ever again, agreed, but now they have the firepower to score tons of points. Freddie is a pretty good Goalie and the D will be better. If they are not on the verge, who is?  or when do you think they may be on the "verge"?

1) There's plenty of very valid reasons that the Stanley Cup isn't the hardest trophy to win, in north america, let alone sports in other parts of the world, like UEFA.

2) You don't seem to be getting it, so I'll try it again. The dispute isn't about whether the leafs are a good team. It's whether using the phrase "on the verge of winning the cup" should be used for any team, unless said team is winning game 7 of the final by a substantial margin with 3 minutes to go in the game.

 

[Kin]

There are a few reasons. One is the difference between the MLB soft cap and the NHL hard cap system. In the MLB system any team is allowed to spend over the established annual cap but they are required to pay a luxury tax on the overage. Imagine if the leafs could go out and pick up the two best defencemen in the league and just pay a tax on the amount they are over the cap.
Secondly the nature of the game itself. In game seven of the World Series a player goes out with a broken ankle you replace him with one of the relief players on the bench. In game seven in the NHL playoffs a player is injured you finish the game one player short.

But none of those things exist in a vacuum. They're as true for a team's opponents as they are for that team. The lack of a salary cap means there are functional super-teams in MLB that have to be faced in the playoffs as opposed to the enforced parity of the NHL. Likewise the physical rigors of hockey affect the teams the Leafs have to play just as much as the Leafs.

The truth is that the idea of one championship being "harder" to win than another is just a nonsense cliche that even then is being misapplied here. Even in your own examples you're jumping back and forth between whether it's harder for players(getting hit) or, I guess, management(the roster limitations the salary cap imposes) to coaching(having to deal with injuries on the fly).

But the reality is that all sports have things that make them uniquely tricky. Right now people are effectively saying the basketball season is over because nobody can beat the Warriors. Likewise, star Basketball players play way more minutes than most hockey players do.

Soccer? No salary cap means every team is effectively competing on a global stage for players and against owners who may or may not care about being profitable. Lower tier clubs also don't have a draft just handing them the equivalent of Auston Matthews for being bad. It's why the same teams win their league every year. How easy is that?

Want to talk about physical impact on players? NFL players are basically giving themselves brain damage week to week, under a hard and byzantine cap that makes roster construction a virtual guessing game from year to year.

Or what about Olympic sports? How much easier is it for millionaire hockey players to train to win their sports' championship than it is for guys who have to work day jobs and get in their reps whenever they can?

The truth is that all of this is just a matter of perspective and a hoary old maxim like the Cup being harder to win than anything else is just being misused here to justify a bit of overhyping of the state the Leafs are in.

 

[Bullfrog]

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

Just to clarify things, I only said it was harder to win the Stanley Cup than the World Series.

 

[Highlander]

Just to clarify things, I only said it was harder to win the Stanley Cup than the World Series.

To clarify, I am talking NHL, MLB, NBA and NFL

 

[skrackle]

Just coming back to this on the verge of thing for a minute.

What's this based on? I vaguely recall someone giving the Leafs 1st place odds at winning a cup next year. Is that it?

Yes, the Leafs added Tavares. And, full marks for that. I didn't think they would pull that off. It will help greatly. Well done. I'm not saying otherwise...but that defense! It's barely playoff calibre, let alone championship quality.

I'm not saying Dubas can't or won't improve that part of the Leafs. I'm sure he sees the need to do so, but it's not a given that he will be able to.

 

[dappleganger]

Just coming back to this on the verge of thing for a minute.

What's this based on? I vaguely recall someone giving the Leafs 1st place odds at winning a cup next year. Is that it?

Yes, the Leafs added Tavares. And, full marks for that. I didn't think they would pull that off. It will help greatly. Well done. I'm not saying otherwise...but that defense! It's barely playoff calibre, let alone championship quality.

I'm not saying Dubas can't or won't improve that part of the Leafs. I'm sure he sees the need to do so, but it's not a given that he will be able to.

Every Leaf fan will concede there is a lot to be desired when it comes to the current D core.

But if you compare the Leafs defence with the defence of the teams in last year's final or the previous year's Stanley Cup winner, the Leafs defence doesn't look that bad.

 

[herman]

Just coming back to this on the verge of thing for a minute.

What's this based on? I vaguely recall someone giving the Leafs 1st place odds at winning a cup next year. Is that it?

Yes, the Leafs added Tavares. And, full marks for that. I didn't think they would pull that off. It will help greatly. Well done. I'm not saying otherwise...but that defense! It's barely playoff calibre, let alone championship quality.

I'm not saying Dubas can't or won't improve that part of the Leafs. I'm sure he sees the need to do so, but it's not a given that he will be able to.

"On the verge of a Stanley Cup" is Lindsay Hofford hyperbole for "Mark Hunter is a hockey wizard" as he's stumping for his long-time boss/friend. I think his statement is accurate insofar as he was reflecting what most of the front office and team probably felt about themselves at the time. Judging by their deadline moves (or lackthereof), that was pretty clearly their read. It's not that accurate per reality, but our perception is generally the reality we interact with.

As for the defense, most hockey systems analysts of the team have pointed to systems and tactics being more culpable than personnel. Defense is a team measure, not just the 2 dudes who play closest to the goalie. To build on what we have further would require a significant asset investment (cap space and players), i.e. we need a 1RD. Adding Tavares instead gives the Leafs an overmatch on lines 2-4, if not also on 1 (playing less DZ hockey). Tavares also fairly recently invested in developing his own play away from the puck (to Selke levels) and you can bet those lessons will be imparted to the young forward core of the Leafs.

 

[ZBBM]

I can't read the original but the pullquote is ambiguous: Hofford says "when we left we *were* on the verge" etc.  First of all, I don't know why he says "we" when the focus is on Hunter.  Second, it's kind of an odd way to say (if this is what he means) that Hunter has left the team *now* on the verge of a Cup.  The team's Cup odds went up a lot with JT -- but Hunter had 0% to do with that.  If he meant that the team was on the verge before landing JT ... well, like I said, ridiculous, especially since the core of the team (even including JT!) has yet to prove they can win even a single playoff round, let alone 4.

 

[Bullfrog]

...Adding Tavares instead gives the Leafs an overmatch on lines 2-4, if not also on 1 (playing less DZ hockey). Tavares also fairly recently invested in developing his own play away from the puck (to Selke levels) and you can bet those lessons will be imparted to the young forward core of the Leafs.

I temporarily forgot that we added Tavares. I just got excited again about the season! One of the reasons I was so initially excited about Tavares is my understanding that he's really a complete player. Regardless of how well known he is, I think a lot of fans are going to be surprised by just how good his overall game is.

Matthews-Tavares-Kadri

just ridiculous

 

[herman]

...Adding Tavares instead gives the Leafs an overmatch on lines 2-4, if not also on 1 (playing less DZ hockey). Tavares also fairly recently invested in developing his own play away from the puck (to Selke levels) and you can bet those lessons will be imparted to the young forward core of the Leafs.

I temporarily forgot that we added Tavares. I just got excited again about the season! One of the reasons I was so initially excited about Tavares is my understanding that he's really a complete player. Regardless of how well known he is, I think a lot of fans are going to be surprised by just how good his overall game is.

Matthews-Tavares-Kadri

just ridiculous

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/tavares-stacks-top-centres-free-agency-suitors/

Berkshire did another article pre-Tavares Day to see how his on-ice contributions stack up to other top centres in the game. What's nice about these is you can see his relative numbers right next to Matthews'. What's also nice is you can see just what a goal-generating monster Matthews is. What's really nice is Tavares is pretty close offensively while being better defensively. What's putting this over the top is that the Leafs have both of these players and it pushes their 32-goal scoring prime veteran centre Nazem Kadri down to feast on much lower competition on the road.

 

[louisstamos]

Here's a money question - is your PP#1 unit:

Tavares - net front
Marner - high right slot
Matthews - high left slot
Nylander - low boards left
Rielly - Point

Or do you split Tavares-Marner and Matthews-Nylander onto two separate PP units?

 

[bustaheims]

Here's a money question - is your PP#1 unit:

Tavares - net front
Marner - high right slot
Matthews - high left slot
Nylander - low boards left
Rielly - Point

Or do you split Tavares-Marner and Matthews-Nylander onto two separate PP units?

I think you split them up most of the time, but you have them practice as a unit for situation where the team really needs a goal on a late PP.

 

[Bullfrog]

Here's a money question - is your PP#1 unit:

Tavares - net front
Marner - high right slot
Matthews - high left slot
Nylander - low boards left
Rielly - Point

Or do you split Tavares-Marner and Matthews-Nylander onto two separate PP units?

The more interesting question for me is where Kadri fits into these lines? Or does he get tried out on penalty kill?