Steve Stamkos?

[Kin]

With any type of reliable goaltending and an upgrade in offense I think it's doable.

I don't think anyone would say that's impossible but for that kind of shift in their record you're probably talking about something in the vicinity of a +30 improvement in their goal differential. That might not sound like much but it's the difference between a team like Boston or Minnesota and Pittsburgh.

 

[McGarnagle]

There may be more offensive talent on the team next season, but I wouldn't put money on there being more consistent production. I imagine there will be fewer close games - and largely not in the Leafs' favour.

I'd definitely agree with this. As mentioned, there's going to be a ton of rookie mistakes - as well as the grind of a long NHL season on still developing players, a lot of whom are going to be expected to play a role down the lineup that they probably haven't been asked to do to this point in their careers. I can easily see Nylander having to learn the other side of the game, and perhaps even riding the pine at points in the season. Injuries are always a possibility as well. 

I think the wild card is probably JVR. If he's moved, that'll be significant to the short term.

 

[Kin]

To put it in some perspective, if the Leafs went from the goaltending they got last year(.909 sv%) to league average(.915) it would only account for 13 or so goals.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

To put it in some perspective, if the Leafs went from the goaltending they got last year(.909 sv%) to league average(.915) it would only account for 13 or so goals.

And if JVR gets traded at the draft or in the summer, that 13 goals is a wash.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I dunno I can see where he's coming from here.  By my count Leafs outright lost 15 one goal games last season.  They were in a lot of games despite shaky goaltending and inconsistent scoring.  If they can find a way to win half of those games, that's an extra 15 points from their total of 69.  With any type of reliable goaltending and an upgrade in offense I think it's doable.

While that sounds somewhat achievable, that's still a pretty tall order.  I count actually 16 regulation one-goal losses, by a total of 28 GF and 44 GA.  A positive differential (whether goals scored or goals prevented) of an average of a goal-per-game over those 16 games to achieve a win-loss split is really quite a bit.  That's asking them to score 57% more goals, or give up 36% less goals, or whatever combination thereof over those games.

 

[Redleaf]

Based on where they went in their respective draft classes, we have our version of them.  That they develop into something as good or near as good as them is still admittedly a hope, yes.  But its not an irrational one.

While I do get where you're going at with that - Matthews and Marner playing similar "type" of games to Toews and Kane, you can't really let draft position dictate the quality of the player.  The quality of the draft pool varies incredibly from year to year.  Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is nowhere near the same level of Sidney Crosby, but they're both playmaking centres that went first overall.

We had that discussion about Kadri a few weeks back - some people were disappointed because they thought a player taken that high (7th overall) should be a first line player.  But if you looked at the rest of the picks immediately after in the first round - Kadri was still arguably the best player taken at that #7 spot.  It just so happened that outside of the top 3 (Tavares, Hedman, Duchene) and OEL at #6 (the pick right before :S), that draft didn't really produce first unit players.

I have faith we'll get the most out of them. We have a big Babcock.

See, this is the endless logic loop that you can't get out of. No matter what, you always find yourself back here trying to argue that what should dictate the direction of the team is your "optimism" or "faith" or whatever word you want to use as opposed to being cautious and waiting to see what the team has.

And, again, optimism or faith is a fine thing to have if you want. If you want to think Marner and Matthews definitely will be Kane/Toews or Zaitsev is definitely HOF bound or Garret Sparks is going to turn into our Tim Thomas without a doubt then that's fine but you can't confuse that with a rational argument and you especially can't criticize the thought process of someone who wants to base their views of what the team should do on something as rational as not building around players who haven't played a NHL game until they establish themselves.

Because we are back to the difference between facts/not facts again. When we say we don't know how good those guys will be, that is a fact. When you say you do, that isn't one.

:

 

[Arn]

Okay. I'll go back even further. The scouts and all assistants.

The scouts were fired last summer. The assistants that were changed going into Carlyle's last season were brought in to help the team compete, not to be part of the rebuild - otherwise, they'd still be around, instead of also getting fired last summer.

So, we're still in year 2/going into the 2nd full season.

The hiring of Dubas. The first indication that Shanny was  ushering in a new era. It didn't start with the product on the ice is my point.

 

[Zee]

I dunno I can see where he's coming from here.  By my count Leafs outright lost 15 one goal games last season.  They were in a lot of games despite shaky goaltending and inconsistent scoring.  If they can find a way to win half of those games, that's an extra 15 points from their total of 69.  With any type of reliable goaltending and an upgrade in offense I think it's doable.

While that sounds somewhat achievable, that's still a pretty tall order.  I count actually 16 regulation one-goal losses, by a total of 28 GF and 44 GA.  A positive differential (whether goals scored or goals prevented) of an average of a goal-per-game over those 16 games to achieve a win-loss split is really quite a bit.  That's asking them to score 57% more goals, or give up 36% less goals, or whatever combination thereof over those games.

Can be a combination of both.  Score more goals, give up fewer goals.  If they could improve a half goal a game scored and a half goal a gave given up, it would account for half of the 16 one-goal losses.

I don't think it's unreachable for the Leafs to hit somewhere in the 80 point range.  I never expected a playoff push, but getting to 80-something points would be a great step forward.  Buffalo made a bigger jump from their tank year to last season.

 

[Kin]

Can be a combination of both.  Score more goals, give up fewer goals.  If they could improve a half goal a game scored and a half goal a gave given up, it would account for half of the 16 one-goal losses.

But that's HS' point. Improving by a half goal a game in both areas would be a swing of +82 goal differential over the course of a season. That's roughly the difference between the Leafs and teams like Dallas or Florida.

Not to mention this seems like a strange metric to begin with. A team isn't any more in or able to win a one goal game than a two goal game if there's a EN goal scored and a lot of one goal games are the result of teams protecting a lead or giving up a late goal that ultimately proves meaningless.

 

[bustaheims]

Can be a combination of both.  Score more goals, give up fewer goals.  If they could improve a half goal a game scored and a half goal a gave given up, it would account for half of the 16 one-goal losses.

I know you're only talking about the 1 goal games, but, it doesn't really work that way and you need to look at them in the context of the full season. To improve steadily in those one goal games, you can't expect the rest of the season to remain consistent to last season (or for the improvements to be spread out so evenly over those games). I mean, you're already talking about 20% of the team's season there. Over a full season, that's a huge shift, though - those numbers would improve their goal differential by 82, and would put them into the top 7 in both categories based on last season's numbers! That's not a realistic level of improvement.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Can be a combination of both.  Score more goals, give up fewer goals.  If they could improve a half goal a game scored and a half goal a gave given up, it would account for half of the 16 one-goal losses.

That's just a big swing to ask of a team that was outscored by an average of 0.59 goals per game over the entire season.  They lost that many 1-goal games for a reason.

 

[Zee]

Can be a combination of both.  Score more goals, give up fewer goals.  If they could improve a half goal a game scored and a half goal a gave given up, it would account for half of the 16 one-goal losses.

That's just a big swing to ask of a team that was outscored by an average of 0.59 goals per game over the entire season.  They lost that many 1-goal games for a reason.

It doesn't have to be as drastic as I mentioned, not a full half goal swing either way.  I'm looking at the teams in the East that had between 80-90 points last year.  That's Carolina, Ottawa, NJ, Montreal and Buffalo.  The average goals for that those teams scored was 208 and the average goals given up was 227.  Looking at the Leafs output from last season that's only a difference of 10 goals for and 19 goals against over 82 games. 

I mean I get where people think the team will have a lot more pain with all the young players, but I also believe there's room for the team to improve.  These guys have had a full season of Babcock's system, and many are coming from a very successful Marlies season and system play.  We've seen other NHL teams jump from one season to the next and make strides, I think the Leafs have the ability to do that and it doesn't have to be major swings from last year.

 

[Kin]

I don't think anyone's disputing that if everything goes right for them that they can improve their record somewhat on last year.

 

[herman]

I don't think anyone's disputing that if everything goes right for them that they can improve their record somewhat on last year.

A lot of things had to go perfectly wrong to net us that 30th finish. Some other teams were gunning hard for that spot.

Please trade JvR.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Based on where they went in their respective draft classes, we have our version of them.  That they develop into something as good or near as good as them is still admittedly a hope, yes.  But its not an irrational one.

While I do get where you're going at with that - Matthews and Marner playing similar "type" of games to Toews and Kane, you can't really let draft position dictate the quality of the player.  The quality of the draft pool varies incredibly from year to year.  Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is nowhere near the same level of Sidney Crosby, but they're both playmaking centres that went first overall.

We had that discussion about Kadri a few weeks back - some people were disappointed because they thought a player taken that high (7th overall) should be a first line player.  But if you looked at the rest of the picks immediately after in the first round - Kadri was still arguably the best player taken at that #7 spot.  It just so happened that outside of the top 3 (Tavares, Hedman, Duchene) and OEL at #6 (the pick right before :S), that draft didn't really produce first unit players.

I have faith we'll get the most out of them. We have a big Babcock.

See, this is the endless logic loop that you can't get out of. No matter what, you always find yourself back here trying to argue that what should dictate the direction of the team is your "optimism" or "faith" or whatever word you want to use as opposed to being cautious and waiting to see what the team has.

And, again, optimism or faith is a fine thing to have if you want. If you want to think Marner and Matthews definitely will be Kane/Toews or Zaitsev is definitely HOF bound or Garret Sparks is going to turn into our Tim Thomas without a doubt then that's fine but you can't confuse that with a rational argument and you especially can't criticize the thought process of someone who wants to base their views of what the team should do on something as rational as not building around players who haven't played a NHL game until they establish themselves.

Because we are back to the difference between facts/not facts again. When we say we don't know how good those guys will be, that is a fact. When you say you do, that isn't one.

:

I share your disdain for facts.

 

[TBLeafer]

When it was Shanny that hand picked Carlyle's assistants I knew they weren't putting a team together to make a playoff team. There were no real roster improvements.

They added Komarov, Robidas, Winnik, Santarelli, and Frattin. They had a deal in place to trade for Gorges. They tried to sign Bolland to a big money, long-term deal. They were absolutely attempting to improve the roster. The fact that they failed is irrelevant. The intent was there. That was their goal. That's not rebuilding.

Or just a bunch of depth pieces to fill out the roster, plus they were going to need to replace Bolland anyway and their own prospect pool was still very thin.

Those players are a whole lot of meh.

 

[Zee]

I don't think anyone's disputing that if everything goes right for them that they can improve their record somewhat on last year.

I think the reverse is also true, everything would have to go wrong for them not to improve from last year.  The reality will probably fall somewhere in the middle, some things will go right, some will go wrong.  I can't see the Leafs finishing with 69 or less points again.  Maybe 80+ is too high, but I don't think it's totally out of the question either.

 

[TBLeafer]

Based on where they went in their respective draft classes, we have our version of them.  That they develop into something as good or near as good as them is still admittedly a hope, yes.  But its not an irrational one.

While I do get where you're going at with that - Matthews and Marner playing similar "type" of games to Toews and Kane, you can't really let draft position dictate the quality of the player.  The quality of the draft pool varies incredibly from year to year.  Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is nowhere near the same level of Sidney Crosby, but they're both playmaking centres that went first overall.

We had that discussion about Kadri a few weeks back - some people were disappointed because they thought a player taken that high (7th overall) should be a first line player.  But if you looked at the rest of the picks immediately after in the first round - Kadri was still arguably the best player taken at that #7 spot.  It just so happened that outside of the top 3 (Tavares, Hedman, Duchene) and OEL at #6 (the pick right before :S), that draft didn't really produce first unit players.

I have faith we'll get the most out of them. We have a big Babcock.

See, this is the endless logic loop that you can't get out of. No matter what, you always find yourself back here trying to argue that what should dictate the direction of the team is your "optimism" or "faith" or whatever word you want to use as opposed to being cautious and waiting to see what the team has.

And, again, optimism or faith is a fine thing to have if you want. If you want to think Marner and Matthews definitely will be Kane/Toews or Zaitsev is definitely HOF bound or Garret Sparks is going to turn into our Tim Thomas without a doubt then that's fine but you can't confuse that with a rational argument and you especially can't criticize the thought process of someone who wants to base their views of what the team should do on something as rational as not building around players who haven't played a NHL game until they establish themselves.

Because we are back to the difference between facts/not facts again. When we say we don't know how good those guys will be, that is a fact. When you say you do, that isn't one.

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

How is the Leafs adding Stamkos to insulate the rookie season of Matthews and Marner, different than Buffalo adding ROR to insulate Eichel?

I mean they bottomed out in 2014/15, why would they go after ROR before they knew what they had in Eichel?  I'm sure they would have chased Stamkos had he been available instead.

In fact, they have the room to chase him this Summer, too.

Is Shannyco gonna sit on their hands and watch this divisional rival have their top three centers become Stamkos, Eichel and ROR?  They are just one year ahead of us in their team's development.

 

[bustaheims]

Those players are a whole lot of meh.

Yes. Hence, the failure. They were being guided by a poor GM in Nonis, and Loiselle and Poulin were still around as his lieutenants - meaning, those 3 were still in charge of forming the roster for the season. Dubas wasn't brought in until late July, and Hunter wasn't brought in until October. By that point, the roster had largely been formed, and their intention was still to try to get the Leafs into the playoffs. It was a spectacular failure, sure, but it wasn't part of a rebuild.

 

[TBLeafer]

Those players are a whole lot of meh.

Yes. Hence, the failure. They were being guided by a poor GM in Nonis, and Loiselle and Poulin were still around as his lieutenants - meaning, those 3 were still in charge of forming the roster for the season. Dubas wasn't brought in until late July, and Hunter wasn't brought in until October. By that point, the roster had largely been formed, and their intention was still to try to get the Leafs into the playoffs. It was a spectacular failure, sure, but it wasn't part of a rebuild.

Yet part of the rebuild is precisely what that season produced, so it did its part.