Leafs trade Colborne

[bustaheims]

You always hear how your 4th line is supposed to be your energy line, but I just don't see that with ours. When they come out I'm usually just hoping we don't get scored on, and a lot of the time I end up pretty disappointed. I think guys like Bodie/Broll/Devane would compete a lot harder just for the sake of keeping their jobs and bring a lot more energy to the ice when they're out there. Orr and McLaren just seem to skate around and follow the play.

That's really the bigger issue. Your 4th line should be able to provide 10 minutes or so of ice time per game. Most nights, the Leafs are getting 5 or 6 out of theirs - and that's because there are 2 guys on that line that are liabilities with even that limited amount of minutes. Swap 2 of Bodie/Broll/Devane in for McLaren and Orr, and maybe the team could actually use their fourth line in the 3rd period.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

For what it's worth, McLaren actually ranked 63rd in the league in goals per 60 minutes, ahead of guys like Bobby Ryan, Anze Kopitar and Patrick Marleau.

Well then Carlyle's an idiot for not playing him with Kessel.

 

[Kin]

Well then Carlyle's an idiot for not playing him with Kessel.

With? I think we just found his replacement if he walks.

 

[slapshot]

I've been pretty much pro Colborne since he's been a prospect. That having been said, it was pretty obvious to the entire planet that he had to have a really good camp to stay with the Leafs. He couldn't go back to the Marlies, wouldn't have cleared waivers obviously.

Rather than bury him on the fourth line, which would have stunted any development, the Leafs did the honourable thing of cutting him loose for an opportunity elsewhere, while gaining something for their trouble. If it turns out to be a high third round pick that will decent. At 23, Joe's had his chance with two clubs now. He'll have to do it with Calgary or that will pretty much be it.

I wish him well, but clearly Ashton Carter played the pre-season like he wanted it more, and Carlyle made his decision on merit. The whole Colborne versus enforcers thing is really a red herring.

 

[Kin]

Boston is a pretty good test case FOR intimidation having an impact.  A team we happen to have to play against a lot.

Are they though? I don't know if you can look at Boston's roster over the year and say that they significantly outperformed their talent level which, I think, you'd have to do if you wanted to attribute any of their success to something as intangible as intimidation. Boston is absolutely an example of the benefit of physicality and size but those seem to be two entirely separate things.

 

[TML fan]

I'm not crazy about having fighters on the team. But I have accepted that as long as Carlyle's the coach we're stuck with it. But what I don't get is why he sticks with Orr (and likely McLaren) when there's players like Broll, Devane, and Bodie in the system that can throw fists at other players faces AND be half decent at hockey. My problem with our current enforcers is that's all they are, face punchers. Other than in the playoffs when Orr was hitting Chara, they rarely get involved with the forecheck, they aren't good at cycling the puck around the boards, and they aren't good defensively.

You always hear how your 4th line is supposed to be your energy line, but I just don't see that with ours. When they come out I'm usually just hoping we don't get scored on, and a lot of the time I end up pretty disappointed. I think guys like Bodie/Broll/Devane would compete a lot harder just for the sake of keeping their jobs and bring a lot more energy to the ice when they're out there. Orr and McLaren just seem to skate around and follow the play.

For what it's worth, McLaren actually ranked 63rd in the league in goals per 60 minutes, ahead of guys like Bobby Ryan, Anze Kopitar and Patrick Marleau.

For what it's worth also, McLaren was even and Orr was plus 4 on the season. They also don't take too many minor penalties. For the limited ice time they play, they are hardly a liability.

One might argue that Orr and/or McLaren actually do MORE than someone like Colborne at equal or close to equal ice time if they were to produce the same amount of points, and given what we saw of Colborne in the pre-season, that was likely to happen.

I think that if one puts aside his/her distaste for fighting in hockey and accepts the reality that it's part of the (NHL) game, one might come to better appreciate their contributions, however limited they are.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Sometimes this place makes my head hurt.

 

[Kin]

I think that if one puts aside his/her distaste for fighting in hockey and accepts the reality that it's part of the (NHL) game, one might come to better appreciate their contributions, however limited they are.

Two things. One, that post of mine is fairly tongue-in-cheek and it's more about highlighting that goals, or points, per 60 isn't much of a stat. Second, I think that the dislike of Orr and McLaren in the lineup has nothing to do with an ability/willingness to acknowledge fighting as part of the game. I know that fighting takes place in the NHL, I don't like it but I have no problem accepting it as fact. The issue is whether or not it actually contributes to the game. I don't think McLaren/Orr contribute much in the way of playing hockey so their actual positives come down to whatever you feel fighting actually adds to the game. That's different than just accepting its reality.

 

[TML fan]

I think that if one puts aside his/her distaste for fighting in hockey and accepts the reality that it's part of the (NHL) game, one might come to better appreciate their contributions, however limited they are.

Two things. One, that post of mine is fairly tongue-in-cheek and it's more about highlighting that goals, or points, per 60 isn't much of a stat. Second, I think that the dislike of Orr and McLaren in the lineup has nothing to do with an ability/willingness to acknowledge fighting as part of the game. I know that fighting takes place in the NHL, I don't like it but I have no problem accepting it as fact. The issue is whether or not it actually contributes to the game. I don't think McLaren/Orr contribute much in the way of playing hockey so their actual positives come down to whatever you feel fighting actually adds to the game. That's different than just accepting its reality.

Ok I see what you're saying and I agree in the hypothetical sense of the discussion.

 

[mr grieves]

Two things. One, that post of mine is fairly tongue-in-cheek and it's more about highlighting that goals, or points, per 60 isn't much of a stat.

Which you've done more than a few times, and I'm certainly no longer confident in it as a measure of efficiency. But I wonder: would it be a more useful stat if it -- or those making use of it -- accounted for something like whether the player in question was facing top defenders and shutdown lines? If you weed out the Ryans and Marleaus and compare Orr to the other fourth-line toughs, would the stat then tell you anything worth knowing about production? Or in reverse, since there's not much worth knowing about the production of guys who play 7 minutes a night.

 

[Kin]

Which you've done more than a few times, and I'm certainly no longer confident in it as a measure of efficiency. But I wonder: would it be a more useful stat if it -- or those making use of it -- accounted for something like whether the player in question was facing top defenders and shutdown lines? If you weed out the Ryans and Marleaus and compare Orr to the other fourth-line toughs, would the stat then tell you anything worth knowing about production? Or in reverse, since there's not much worth knowing about the production of guys who play 7 minutes a night.

Well, in the case of a guy like Orr or McLaren, who are going to play so few minutes and score so few goals a bounce here or there that could lead to a swing of 2 or 3 goals one way or the other, will probably separate the very best from the very worst and that's very much within the realm of luck as opposed to skill.

In general though, I don't know how useful it is because I'm not really convinced that point production is that closely tied to ice time.

 

[princedpw]

What does Colborne do really well?  What does he bring to the team?  Is he great on face-offs?  Passing?  Shooting?  Fighting?  Pestering?  Defending?  Skating?

He doesnt have to do any of them "great". He just has to do them better than the alternative guys who might play in his spot.  He doesnt fight better but he does all of the others better, and those other things correlate with winning. 

It is about Orr vs Colborne because when you replace Orr with Colborne on the right wing *this year* I believe the team wins more. And in 4 years, Colborne might mature in to a good 3rd or 2nd line center. 

 

[Tigger]

What does Colborne do really well?  What does he bring to the team?  Is he great on face-offs?  Passing?  Shooting?  Fighting?  Pestering?  Defending?  Skating?

He doesnt have to do any of them "great". He just has to do them better than the alternative guys who might play in his spot.  He doesnt fight better but he does all of the others better, and those other things correlate with winning. 

It is about Orr vs Colborne because when you replace Orr with Colborne on the right wing *this year* I believe the team wins more. And in 4 years, Colborne might mature in to a good 3rd or 2nd line center.

Yup, for my money it's a bit of a crap ending for him in Toronto but apparently we need the goons so, yay.

 

[Kin]

He doesnt have to do any of them "great". He just has to do them better than the alternative guys who might play in his spot.  He doesnt fight better but he does all of the others better, and those other things correlate with winning. 

It is about Orr vs Colborne because when you replace Orr with Colborne on the right wing *this year* I believe the team wins more. And in 4 years, Colborne might mature in to a good 3rd or 2nd line center.

Honest question. If you had two different teams who had 9 forwards, 6 defensemen and 2 goalies of roughly comparable skill and talent but one team had a terrible 4th line and the other had the best 4th line in the league(but still filled with players who aren't 3rd liners in terms of talent) how many more games do you think the team with the better 4th line would win? How valuable is a really good 4th line?

 

[dappleganger]

He doesnt have to do any of them "great". He just has to do them better than the alternative guys who might play in his spot.  He doesnt fight better but he does all of the others better, and those other things correlate with winning. 

It is about Orr vs Colborne because when you replace Orr with Colborne on the right wing *this year* I believe the team wins more. And in 4 years, Colborne might mature in to a good 3rd or 2nd line center.

Honest question. If you had two different teams who had 9 forwards, 6 defensemen and 2 goalies of roughly comparable skill and talent but one team had a terrible 4th line and the other had the best 4th line in the league(but still filled with players who aren't 3rd liners in terms of talent) how many more games do you think the team with the better 4th line would win? How valuable is a really good 4th line?

Is the team with the worse 4th line able to pound the crap out of the team with the better 4th line?

 

[princedpw]

He doesnt have to do any of them "great". He just has to do them better than the alternative guys who might play in his spot.  He doesnt fight better but he does all of the others better, and those other things correlate with winning. 

It is about Orr vs Colborne because when you replace Orr with Colborne on the right wing *this year* I believe the team wins more. And in 4 years, Colborne might mature in to a good 3rd or 2nd line center.

Honest question. If you had two different teams who had 9 forwards, 6 defensemen and 2 goalies of roughly comparable skill and talent but one team had a terrible 4th line and the other had the best 4th line in the league(but still filled with players who aren't 3rd liners in terms of talent) how many more games do you think the team with the better 4th line would win? How valuable is a really good 4th line?

Honest answer: no one knows, but it improves the odds.  There is lots of randomness and luck involved.  But sometimes, often even, getting in to the playoffs is determined by 1, 2 or 3 points.  The leafs have missed by just a point or two several times over the last decade. Could a 4th line make a 2 point difference over the course of 82 games? Sure. Will they? No one knows.  Could a 4th line player prevent a playoff goal?  Or score a goal that swings a series?

We don't know but I want my GM to optimize his lineup to the extent possible and I'm going to complain if he doesn't. I'm especially going to complain if he can't explain, in scientific terms, why he believes a particular move will increase the teams chance of winning.


-------------------

And I've said this before, but I forget the answer.  If you think the leafs are so "meh". If Grabbo vs Bozak doesn't really matter because they are both sucky 2nd line centers, then why aren't you *more* upset over the *long-term* loadstone that is the Bozak/Clarkson contracts.  To be honest, I really wouldn't care if Clarkson was signed to a billion dollars this year, as long as it was gone three years from now.  It is the long-term problem that kills me so bad and that makes these smaller moves grind on my psyche.

You complained for years on Kessel vs. Seguin because of the long-term impact, not the short term differential.  That is what is bugging me.  I see little hope this season and, unfortunately, I see it getting worse in the next 3 or 4 years.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Wow thanks, this is the Ray of sunshine that I needed this morning.

 

[Kin]

Honest answer: no one knows, but it improves the odds.

But that's why I asked you what you thought. We've all been hockey fans for a long stretch of time, we've all seen teams with 4th lines we thought were effective and 4th lines we thought weren't. The question is about how significant an impact you feel a good 4th line would have over the course of the season. Not having empirical data on the subject doesn't make it a worthless thing to talk about with, of course, the obvious starting point that whenever you say "What is the impact of a good ______ vs. a bad ______ on the team" that the good one is better.

And I've said this before, but I forget the answer.  If you think the leafs are so "meh". If Grabbo vs Bozak doesn't really matter because they are both sucky 2nd line centers, then why aren't you *more* upset over the *long-term* loadstone that is the Bozak/Clarkson contracts.

Well, two things. One, as I said elsewhere, to me what you're doing is akin to complaining about Christmas Tree decorations when the house is on fire. That I don't like the larger, overall approach is precisely the reason I'm not pulling my hair out about the smaller stuff. Secondly, I don't think those contracts are quite as problematic as you do. The Clarkson one is one I don't like but considering that it was widely reported that the Leafs were not the high bidder the idea that his contract couldn't possibly be moved now or, say, a year or two from now if he plays well seems pretty counter-intuitive. As for Bozak, I think that's a straight up decent contract.

It is the long-term problem that kills me so bad and that makes these smaller moves grind on my psyche.

Well, then right off the bat I feel like the fundamental difference between us is one of perspective.

You complained for years on Kessel vs. Seguin because of the long-term impact, not the short term differential.  That is what is bugging me.  I see little hope this season and, unfortunately, I see it getting worse in the next 3 or 4 years.

But that's because, at least in part, the problem with the Kessel deal was always one of philosophy and how the Kessel deal was a stand-in for Burke's quick fix strategy that I knew didn't stand much of a chance of succeeding. If your complaint about the Bozak/Clarkson deals were "The team is fundamentally flawed, therefore the team needs to be blown up" I'd understand your reasoning if not, perhaps, the verve you're bringing.

However, the complaint seems to be, in Bozak's case, "I don't like the one mediocre player with the problematic contract, I much prefer the other mediocre player with the problematic contract" and in Clarkson's "I'd rather the team just putter along and maintain the so-so core they built rather than go all in with lousy cards" and both of those seem like kind of strange things to find so troubling, let alone feel so strongly about.

The Kessel trade, which I don't think I complained about "for years" but rather that I always felt consistently about and only really mentioned when someone else would bring up as a positive, was still always one where I openly acknowledged that it's ultimate epitaph would be written by how well the team did with Kessel and not by how good Seguin turned out to be or whether Boston did better than the Leafs. When Kessel scored a goal I pumped my fist(metaphorically), I didn't say "But grrrrr, that trade!". I disagreed with it, and still do, from a team building perspective but I think my post count over the years would serve as a pretty good testament that it didn't kill my enthusiasm for the club.

 

[Bullfrog]

Well, in the case of a guy like Orr or McLaren, who are going to play so few minutes and score so few goals a bounce here or there that could lead to a swing of 2 or 3 goals one way or the other, will probably separate the very best from the very worst and that's very much within the realm of luck as opposed to skill.

In general though, I don't know how useful it is because I'm not really convinced that point production is that closely tied to ice time.

I do think stats per 60 numbers have a place, but what you've illustrated is they're not suitable for players with small amounts of ice time.

 

[Kin]

I do think stats per 60 numbers have a place, but what you've illustrated is they're not suitable for players with small amounts of ice time.

Well, they're definitely less accurate when dealing with marginal players but I think they're problematic enough with anyone. If a player goes from 20 minutes to 22 minutes a night I don't think it's reasonable to necessarily expect a scoring increase without taking into account the various other factors that go into what a player does during the course of a game.