Of Nonis, Babcock & who the heck is going to be running this asylum on draft day

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Patrick, how did you know my nickname was Bud?

It has a better ring to it than Miller or Coors.

 

[rdowdall]

And despite what I think you're implying I haven't said that if something isn't quantifiable it isn't real. In fact I directly said the opposite. After the fact, or even during, I think you can look at the atmosphere that surrounds a club and atttribute that to coaching and the veterans on the club. That's not quantifiable, sure, but I think it's something smart managers can recognize and, if not plan for, at least attempt to correct.

But while attempting to correct it, damage could still be done.  Depends on how it takes for them to recognize/fix the problem.

No, not really. What I said was that if the Leafs sent Nylander down despite being the best player on the club because they want to "tank" then they should consider the message it sends to the rest of the team. A team intentionally losing games by keeping their best options for winning off the club is one of those things that I can easily buy creating a bad atmosphere.

So you have a supposition that the long term and short term plans of a team can send a message to a player that could negatively effect their motivation and that's okay,  but I have a supposition that media/fan pressure can negatively affect a players development and it's suddenly burn the witch time?

But I'm not advocating they do that. I'm advocating the opposite. I don't buy the idea that a rebuilding team will necessarily have a bad atmosphere so I think that if Nylander is capable of playing in the NHL next year, based on an evaluation of his hockey skill, he should make the team. I think that would be encouraging for a guy like Rielly and I think that could lead to the start of an environment within the locker room that would build as the team improved.

No I realize that you don't want Nylander to go down to the farm in situation. 

Well, leaving aside that I would genuinely question how many players who ever make the NHL have ever really been cut in their lives aside from a WJC(and even then, I'd guess not many) I don't agree that getting cut from a NHL team is the same as getting cut from a pee wee team. I mean I could just as easily say that all young players have also experienced pressure in their lives so that's not exactly new either.

Or you could look at it like very few 18 or 19 year old players are actually ready for the NHL, so you could actually propose it to them as they just aren't ready yet, and give them some things to work on as they go down. 

If the Leafs trade the following players:

Phanuef
Lupul
JVR
Bozak
Kessel
Kadri
Gardner

That's  7 spots that have to be filled.  Filling them all with rookies in my opinion would be a mistake.  Even if they are physically ready to handle the NHL, that is a big chunk of pressure to heap on those 7 rookies. 

If they trade only Phanuef and Kessel and you want to fill those spots with rookies because they are physically ready and you figure you got the group of Lupul, Robidas, JVR and Kadri to take the pressure off those two rookies, then that is different scenario.  If you are going to flip the whole roster, then I think it would make more sense to flush out most of the spots with scrubs, and then fill out one, maybe two, spots with the rookies that you think are ready to make the jump.

 

[Kin]

But while attempting to correct it, damage could still be done.  Depends on how it takes for them to recognize/fix the problem.

Sure, but having the wrong coaches/leadership in place is a risk they're going to run no matter who's on the team. There's no way to avoid that.

So you have a supposition that the long term and short term plans of a team can send a message to a player that could negatively effect their motivation and that's okay,  but I have a supposition that media/fan pressure can negatively affect a players development and it's suddenly burn the witch time?

Sure. My supposition is based on the team doing something that fundamentally subverts the entire concept of competitive athletics and relevant examples. Yours is based on unfounded pop psychology.

Or you could look at it like very few 18 or 19 year old players are actually ready for the NHL, so you could actually propose it to them as they just aren't ready yet, and give them some things to work on as they go down.

Sure you could. But there's still no way of knowing how it will affect them regardless of how you phrase it just like there's no way of knowing what media pressure will do to a player at any age. Both are unknowable and therefore equally risky. 

That's  7 spots that have to be filled.  Filling them all with rookies in my opinion would be a mistake.  Even if they are physically ready to handle the NHL, that is a big chunk of pressure to heap on those 7 rookies. 

Well that's where we get to our more practical disagreement. I don't agree in the slightest. I don't think the fanbase will react to a rebuilding team the way you seem to. I think that for the rebuild in general but next year undeniably this Leafs team will be subject to the least amount of pressure it's humanly possible for a Leafs team to be subject to. Even if you buy that the fanbase media is impatient, which I don't, I don't think anyone would agree that fans will be outraged with a one year rebuild.

Fans will go into next year knowing the team has no hope and is building for the future. Nobody's going to boo Greg McKegg for booting a pass in November. That makes it the best possible time to give jobs to rookies, most of whom aren't going to be 18 or 19 anyway.

 

[rdowdall]

Sure. My supposition is based on the team doing something that fundamentally subverts the entire concept of competitive athletics and relevant examples. Yours is based on unfounded pop psychology.

Because motivational levels have nothing to do with state of mind?  So highly motivated athletes suddenly become demotivated because the team decides to send a good player down?  Losing because the team didn't invest in winning is different than losing because you just aren't good enough?

Or you could look at it like very few 18 or 19 year old players are actually ready for the NHL, so you could actually propose it to them as they just aren't ready yet, and give them some things to work on as they go down.

Sure you could. But there's still no way of knowing how it will affect them regardless of how you phrase it just like there's no way of knowing what media pressure will do to a player at any age. Both are unknowable and therefore equally risky. 

So then you might as well just start every 18 year old  who is physically ready in the NHL.  I mean you have know way of knowing, so why bother sending them back to junior.

Well that's where we get to our more practical disagreement. I don't agree in the slightest. I don't think the fanbase will react to a rebuilding team the way you seem to. I think that for the rebuild in general but next year undeniably this Leafs team will be subject to the least amount of pressure it's humanly possible for a Leafs team to be subject to. Even if you buy that the fanbase media is impatient, which I don't, I don't think anyone would agree that fans will be outraged with a one year rebuild.

Fans will go into next year knowing the team has no hope and is building for the future. Nobody's going to boo Greg McKegg for booting a pass in November. That makes it the best possible time to give jobs to rookies, most of whom aren't going to be 18 or 19 anyway.

Hope your right.

 

[Kin]

Because motivational levels have nothing to do with state of mind?  So highly motivated athletes suddenly become demotivated because the team decides to send a good player down?  Losing because the team didn't invest in winning is different than losing because you just aren't good enough?

Yeah, I genuinely believe that there's a fundamental difference between losing while trying your hardest and losing a rigged game.

So then you might as well just start every 18 year old  who is physically ready in the NHL.  I mean you have know way of knowing, so why bother sending them back to junior.

As a general rule I think they do. So long as they're physically ready, can learn/fit into the system a team plays and will be better than a team's other options I think most NHL teams will keep a teenager in the NHL.

 

[rdowdall]

Yeah, I genuinely believe that there's a fundamental difference between losing while trying your hardest and losing a rigged game.

Well as long as you genuinely believe it.

As a general rule I think they do. So long as they're physically ready, can learn/fit into the system a team plays and will be better than a team's other options I think most NHL teams will keep a teenager in the NHL.

So then what about players that you send back after the 9 game trial?  Good, bad, indifferent?

 

[Kin]

So then what about players that you send back after the 9 game trial?  Good, bad, indifferent?

I think the players who get the 9 day trial do so for one of two reasons. Either a team thinks they might be ready and want to take a look, or they don't really think they are and want to use the nine games as both a reward to the player and a first-hand look at some of the things they need to work on.

I don't know what you mean by good, bad or indifferent but in general I don't think it matters much.

 

[rdowdall]

So then what about players that you send back after the 9 game trial?  Good, bad, indifferent?

I think the players who get the 9 day trial do so for one of two reasons. Either a team thinks they might be ready and want to take a look, or they don't really think they are and want to use the nine games as both a reward to the player and a first-hand look at some of the things they need to work on.

I don't know what you mean by good, bad or indifferent but in general I don't think it matters much.

I meant in regards to impact on the players future

I also have been reading this:

http://thesportjournal.org/article/does-the-media-impact-athletic-performance/

 

[Kin]

I meant in regards to impact on the players future

Oh, yeah, indifferent then.

 

[Al14]

Peter C is now available to be a GM for, dare I say us?

Not sure if he meshes well with Shanahan.  Who knows, he just might end up back in Ottawa if Murray steps down after this season due to his health issue. 

 

[Peter D.]

I have to say, the way the current management structure is set up, I think it aligns with allowing Babcock to become both GM and coach of the team.

 

[Al14]

I have to say, the way the current management structure is set up, I think it aligns with allowing Babcock to become both GM and coach of the team.

If Babcock is the target, why is Shanahan talking to Sean Burke?  I can't see Burke leaving Phoenix for a lesser role than G.M. at this point. 

 

[Kin]

I have to say, the way the current management structure is set up, I think it aligns with allowing Babcock to become both GM and coach of the team.

If Babcock is the target, why is Shanahan talking to Sean Burke?  I can't see Burke leaving Phoenix for a lesser role than G.M. at this point.

Because it makes sense to have back-up plans?

 

[Al14]

I have to say, the way the current management structure is set up, I think it aligns with allowing Babcock to become both GM and coach of the team.

If Babcock is the target, why is Shanahan talking to Sean Burke?  I can't see Burke leaving Phoenix for a lesser role than G.M. at this point.

Because it makes sense to have back-up plans?

So, they're going to go through the motions with Burke, and then, let him dangle in the wind till they find out whether or not Babcock is coming?

How does Burke feel about being their second choice?

 

[Kin]

So, they're going to go through the motions with Burke, and then, let him dangle in the wind till they find out whether or not Babcock is coming?

How does Burke feel about being their second choice?

If you go in to interview for a job you want, you don't know that you're the second choice until you don't get it. They'll interview Burke, interview others and make their decision. That makes way more sense than sitting on their thumbs until Mike Babcock makes up his mind.

 

[Highlander]

If Burke gets the hire, he can double up as goalie coach.. a real win win

 

[Al14]

So, they're going to go through the motions with Burke, and then, let him dangle in the wind till they find out whether or not Babcock is coming?

How does Burke feel about being their second choice?

If you go in to interview for a job you want, you don't know that you're the second choice until you don't get it. They'll interview Burke, interview others and make their decision. That makes way more sense than sitting on their thumbs until Mike Babcock makes up his mind.

Oh, I agree completely with interview process, and, the final candidate selection task.

However, I guess my problem is with Burke as a candidate for the G.M. position.  Now, if he's being interviewed for another position, like A.G.M., including him being the head goalie coach, I'm all for it.

I just don't think he has the experience to be G.M. of the Toronto Maple Leafs at this point in time.

JMHO.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

A pretty good update on Randy Carlyle and in case anyone was not convinced the core was rotten in Toronto, he gives them both barrels.

Players point blank refused to play 'inside hockey' and they aren't capable/built to be a defensively responsible team.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/nhl/Candid-Carlyle-wants-back-in-300560581.html?device=mobile

 

[L K]

Explain Anaheim Randy.  Explain Anaheim.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Explain Anaheim Randy.  Explain Anaheim.

While I don't agree, the case would likely be that a coach like that has a shelf life. You can only give them the stick for so long before they want the carrot.

(I know, HOF dmen aside they weren't great under him.)