Leafs' D is in Better Shape Than We Think?

[TBLeafer]

Look at all that cap we'll have cleared in just 2 seasons to allow for those contingencies...

But that's sort of the double-edged sword of the Leafs' situation. Either they don't have internal solutions and they need to address it externally or they do have internal solutions and a lot of that cap space is going to be eaten up by extensions to guys we haven't really factored into long-term budgets.

Now given those two options you absolutely pull for the latter because the reality is that if the Leafs in a year or two's time are sitting around and looking for their version of Keith or Doughty(or, if Rielly's that, Seabrook or Vlasic) the reality is that that's going to be incredibly hard to find even if you had all the cap space in the world. Guys like that just typically aren't for sale.

So in my ideal world what happens this season is the Leafs get a year of useful evaluation of what they have and wind up with another top 5 pick that they can use to add a top tier defensive prospect.

Who is to say what internal options will or won't develop?

PK Subban - 2nd round, 43rd overall
Roman Josi - 2nd round, 38th overall
Erik Karlsson - 1st round, 15th overall
Duncan Keith - 2nd round, 54th overall
Alex Pietrangelo - 1st round, 4th overall
Zdeno Chara - 3rd round, 56th overall
Kris Letang - 3rd round, 62 overall
Ryan Suter - 1st round, 7th overall
Shea Weber - 2nd round, 49th overall
Niklas Lidstrom - 3rd round, 53rd overall
Lubomir Visnovsky - 4th round, 118th overall

 

[Kin]

 
Who is to say what internal options will or won't develop?

Nobody really. That's why waiting and letting them prove themselves is so much more of an effective strategy than trying to declare that prematurely and gameplan around potential possibilities as if they were already true.

Guys like Dermott and Nielsen for instance, might turn into very good NHL players which is why you want to maintain the flexibility to deal with that possibility and the potential cap consequences of it. You also, again, want to hope for the best(that every player in the Leafs' system turns out great) while also preparing for the worst. If they don't, if that internal option doesn't present itself, you want to be able to have that flexibility to address it externally in the best way possible whether that's signing a big ticket UFA defenseman if one's available, having the assets(including cap space) to acquire one via trade if one's available and to continue to make high value picks.

I mean, I can put together an equally impressive list of great forwards who were drafted late but one of the reasons we're so optimistic about our forward group is between Nylander, Marner and Matthews we have a bunch of guys who were drafted at the top of the draft which represents a team's best chance at adding high level players. That doesn't mean we don't think Timashov or Bracco can develop into good players, it just means we're playing the odds. Ideally, the Leafs will get to do that with their defensemen as well.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Keith and Hossa signed back when the salaries were lower.  That's not a good comparison.  Something about apples and oranges.

Sure but their cap hits were still very heavily deflated because of those back-diving deals. Keith's cap hit if you're just counting the first 8 years of his deal would be $7.2mil, Hossa's $7.41mil.

But I mean the fact that it isn't a good comparison is what my point really was. You can't compare the Leafs plan to Chicago's plan because, among other reasons, Chicago's plan relied heavily on getting a 25% cap hit discount on a couple of their best players.

 

[TBLeafer]

 
Who is to say what internal options will or won't develop?

Nobody really. That's why waiting and letting them prove themselves is so much more of an effective strategy than trying to declare that prematurely and gameplan around potential possibilities as if they were already true.

Guys like Dermott and Nielsen for instance, might turn into very good NHL players which is why you want to maintain the flexibility to deal with that possibility and the potential cap consequences of it. You also, again, want to hope for the best(that every player in the Leafs' system turns out great) while also preparing for the worst. If they don't, if that internal option doesn't present itself, you want to be able to have that flexibility to address it externally in the best way possible whether that's signing a big ticket UFA defenseman if one's available, having the assets(including cap space) to acquire one via trade if one's available and to continue to make high value picks.

I mean, I can put together an equally impressive list of great forwards who were drafted late but one of the reasons we're so optimistic about our forward group is between Nylander, Marner and Matthews we have a bunch of guys who were drafted at the top of the draft which represents a team's best chance at adding high level players. That doesn't mean we don't think Timashov or Bracco can develop into good players, it just means we're playing the odds. Ideally, the Leafs will get to do that with their defensemen as well.

Which is why IMO, next season with the situation already being addressed by acquiring young, but seasoned pros in Carrick and Zaitsev, addressing D isn't as big a need right now as some make it out to be as a counter to signing Stamkos if he comes available.

Especially is cheaper rookie prospects like Dermott, Nielsen, Loov, etc prove close to being ready.

So I would say at this time that a proven 1C and starting G are bigger areas of need to fill at this time than a top pairing D.

 

[Kin]

Which is why IMO, next season with the situation already being addressed by acquiring young, but seasoned pros in Carrick and Zaitsev, addressing D isn't as big a need right now as some make it out to be as a counter to signing Stamkos if he comes available.

But that makes it sound like you didn't understand what I said at all. Declaring the issue already "addressed" by adding Zaitsev and Carrick is the opposite of what I'm saying. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So I would say at this time that a proven 1C and starting G are bigger areas of need to fill at this time than a top pairing D.

I get that you said "proven" here, but in 3 years our projected top-3 centres will be Matthews-Nylander-Kadri. That would easily be the best group of centremen I've seen in a Leafs uniform in my lifetime. So I'm not sure how that's a big need.

 

[TBLeafer]

Which is why IMO, next season with the situation already being addressed by acquiring young, but seasoned pros in Carrick and Zaitsev, addressing D isn't as big a need right now as some make it out to be as a counter to signing Stamkos if he comes available.

But that makes it sound like you didn't understand what I said at all. Declaring the issue already "addressed" by adding Zaitsev and Carrick is the opposite of what I'm saying.

Not really.  Adding Carrick addressed that need in deadline day trade in receiving a top D prospect.  Getting Zaitsev as arguably "the best available young D not presently in the NHL" is as well.  The fact that they weren't currently NHL'ers when acquired, doesn't mean you didn't address the need.  It just means you don't what you have at the NHL level in them and need to see where they fit on your roster.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

As much as I liked Carrick's play as a Leaf/Marlie, he was a soon-to-be 22 year old throw-in in a salary dump trade. His long-term future projection is likely a pretty reliable bottom-pairing guy.

 

[TBLeafer]

So I would say at this time that a proven 1C and starting G are bigger areas of need to fill at this time than a top pairing D.

I get that you said "proven" here, but in 3 years our projected top-3 centres will be Matthews-Nylander-Kadri. That would easily be the best group of centremen I've seen in a Leafs uniform in my lifetime. So I'm not sure how that's a big need.

IMO rookies should still be somewhat sheltered and having too many good centers would be a dream come true.  Having to shift one to wing if that proves necessary by being too deep at center shouldn't be a problem, while we figure out who fits best where, shared duties, etc.

 

[Kin]

Not really.  Adding Carrick addressed that need in deadline day trade in receiving a top D prospect.  Getting Zaitsev as arguably "the best available young D not presently in the NHL" is as well.  The fact that they weren't currently NHL'ers when acquired, doesn't mean you didn't address the need.  It just means you don't what you have at the NHL level in them and need to see where they fit on your roster.

Look, I'm not super-interested in debating what you think a top prospect is but at the very least you have to acknowledge that what I'm advocating, which is seeing what they have at the NHL level while also planning for the worst case scenario and finishing in a position to add a defensive prospect in the top 5 or 10 of the draft, stands in stark contradiction to what you're saying. 

That doesn't close off the possibility of anyone's development but treating it like it's not a possibility that the team doesn't currently have those internal options can be called a lot of things but it's absolutely, 100% the opposite of what I'm saying.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Using players we have right now I think a good top-6 3 years from now could look something like this:

Rielly-x
Gardiner-Zaitsev/Dermott
Marincin/Nielsen/Harrington-Carrick/Corrado

That 'x' is a pretty important piece though.

 

[TBLeafer]

As much as I liked Carrick's play as a Leaf/Marlie, he was a soon-to-be 22 year old throw-in in a salary dump trade. His long-term future projection is likely a pretty reliable bottom-pairing guy.

I don't think Carrick was the throw in.  I think he was the main piece Shannyco. was after as well as the 2nd rounder and accepting the salary dump for Winnik.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

IMO rookies should still be somewhat sheltered and having too many good centers would be a dream come true.  Having to shift one to wing if that proves necessary by being too deep at center shouldn't be a problem, while we figure out who fits best where, shared duties, etc.

But that still hardly defines it as a need. And we're not signing Stamkos to be some stop-gap centre for Matthews/Nylander while they play their first or second season. You even admit that bringing Stamkos on board would likely result in having too many good centres, but we're not even close to that being a problem on defence. We have too many 4-6 defencemen there, and not enough 1-3 guys.

 

[TBLeafer]

Using players we have right now I think a good top-6 3 years from now could look something like this:

Rielly-x
Gardiner-Zaitsev/Dermott
Marincin/Nielsen/Harrington-Carrick/Corrado

That 'x' is a pretty important piece though.

Still, I do like the sound of first-team KHL All Star. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

TB I guess a better way of looking at this is asking which position do you think we're in better shape at/which needs more improvement?

C: Matthews-Nylander-Kadri

D: Rielly-Gardiner-Zaitsev-Carrick

 

[Kin]

But that still hardly defines it as a need. 

Yeah, I'm loathe to talk about Stamkos anywhere but the Stamkos thread but to define something as a need you have to present a compelling case not just for why it might be nice to have but why you legitimately can't win without it. None of the recently successful teams have seen having an already established #1 C as crucial because none of them really had it. All of the #1 C's on recently successful teams were homegrown.

You'd probably have to go back to the '06 Hurricanes to find a team that had an established #1 guy before they added the #1 who led them to the cup and that's if you want to count someone like Brind'Amour.

 

[jonlleafs]

So I would say at this time that a proven 1C and starting G are bigger areas of need to fill at this time than a top pairing D.

I get that you said "proven" here, but in 3 years our projected top-3 centres will be Matthews-Nylander-Kadri. That would easily be the best group of centremen I've seen in a Leafs uniform in my lifetime. So I'm not sure how that's a big need.

Yes but we could make our top 6 even better by moving Kadri or Nylander over to wing with the addition of a 1C like Stamkos.

 

[jonlleafs]

As much as I liked Carrick's play as a Leaf/Marlie, he was a soon-to-be 22 year old throw-in in a salary dump trade. His long-term future projection is likely a pretty reliable bottom-pairing guy.

Regardless of what the feeling was at the time of the trade, after seeing his play, I think he has a lot of potential.  He skates above average and makes nice plays.  He has offensive abilities as well and doesn't shy away from the physical stuff.  He could turn out to be the diamond-in-the-rough.

 

[jonlleafs]

So I would say at this time that a proven 1C and starting G are bigger areas of need to fill at this time than a top pairing D.

I get that you said "proven" here, but in 3 years our projected top-3 centres will be Matthews-Nylander-Kadri. That would easily be the best group of centremen I've seen in a Leafs uniform in my lifetime. So I'm not sure how that's a big need.

IMO rookies should still be somewhat sheltered and having too many good centers would be a dream come true.  Having to shift one to wing if that proves necessary by being too deep at center shouldn't be a problem, while we figure out who fits best where, shared duties, etc.

I totally agree with you here.  Being able to acquire an elite 1C center who is proven without giving up a top draft pick or blue chip prospect is like winning the lottery.  You don't say to the lottery officials and say "Sorry no I won't take this lottery money because I have enough and may have more money as I get raises in the future".  You take it and run away giggling like a school girl.

 

[jonlleafs]

TB I guess a better way of looking at this is asking which position do you think we're in better shape at/which needs more improvement?

C: Matthews-Nylander-Kadri

D: Rielly-Gardiner-Zaitsev-Carrick

Just like in the Stamkos thread, it's hard to say.  They could all flop or they could all be good to great NHLers.  So we can go ahead with the defense we have and continue to stockpile.  Next season is another throw away season so we can let them get out there and learn trial by fire.