The Core

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Fair and valid point. I don't think there is any way of outright winning a Marner trade (unless McDavid?). Best case would be getting a more diverse mix to pad the upper middle depth chart and filling a dire hole with a prime or rising star centre (Larkin, Barzal, Petersson, Hintz tier). No one will hit Marner's ceiling individually, but on the aggregate could exceed his value.

Oh. So all we have to do is trade Marner for a bunch of really good players and somehow figure out how to add a young all-star C while staying under the cap. My mistake I thought this was going to be hard.

Yes, we are smarter than all NHL general managers. 

While it's harmless fun to play armchair GM and propose ridiculous trades, I'm often reminded of what George Mcphee said, "truth of the matter is if that they knew anything about the game, they'd be in it". 

 

[herman]

I'm not saying it'll be easy or that it has to be completed in one transaction. At some point, it's not a tenable solution to keep watching Marner rack up regular season points off an inflated TOI, and see him continue playing those minutes in the playoffs but a mere shadow of himself (playstyle, energy level, hometown pressure or what have you) while continually putting the salary structure and discourse over a barrel.

There are a handful of teams flush with centres but don't have Mitch, who might want to change their mixes as well, so that centre target would be the centrepiece of any trade return. Secondary deals will have more flexibility with the 10.9M moved out, to round out the net roster changes.

 

[L K]

The Leafs also don't have that guy knocking at the door to become a top line player...nobody to promote, unless Knies turns into something very very quickly. 

So would you rather have Mitch Marner, or 2 guys at $5.5m a piece contributing 50 points a each?

The problem is who are those 5.5 million guys.  Are they players who step up in the postseason and end up being .8-.9 PPG players in the playoffs or are they guys who are .5 PPG players during the regular season AND playoffs.  Two lesser players who are truly just lesser players probably aren't better than one Mitch Marner.

It's important to keep in mind that over the last 3 seasons Marner is 4th in NHL scoring.
McDavid (381), Draisaitl (322), MacKinnon (264), Marner (263).  From a PPG perspective Marner drops to 6th (Kucherov jumps to 4th and Matthews is 5th).  Not to mention that Marner got a Selke nod this year while putting up that level of offence.

I don't think you can really find a scenario where the Leafs are a better team trading Marner unless you win the lottery on a prospect or two getting good really fast and becoming unexpected PPG players right away.  That's highly unlikely to happen.

 

[Kin]

I'm not saying it'll be easy or that it has to be completed in one transaction. At some point, it's not a tenable solution to keep watching Marner rack up regular season points off an inflated TOI, and see him continue playing those minutes in the playoffs but a mere shadow of himself (playstyle, energy level, hometown pressure or what have you) while continually putting the salary structure and discourse over a barrel.

There are a handful of teams flush with centres but don't have Mitch, who might want to change their mixes as well, so that centre target would be the centrepiece of any trade return. Secondary deals will have more flexibility with the 10.9M moved out, to round out the net roster changes.

Again, this is where we come back to the idea that we're somehow clever enough to see that Marner is a liability in the playoffs but NHL GM's aren't and will offer the Leafs very valuable pieces who step up their game in the playoffs with all the required gritty grititude.

I've never said that the idea of making some significant changes is necessarily off the table, we just have to be realistic about what we're working with after making a trade based around the idea of "This guy is overpriced and can't help us win". Almost certainly we're going to be left with a situation where the Leafs have neither impressive top end talent or good young depth.

 

[Bender]

The Leafs also don't have that guy knocking at the door to become a top line player...nobody to promote, unless Knies turns into something very very quickly. 

So would you rather have Mitch Marner, or 2 guys at $5.5m a piece contributing 50 points a each?

The problem is who are those 5.5 million guys.  Are they players who step up in the postseason and end up being .8-.9 PPG players in the playoffs or are they guys who are .5 PPG players during the regular season AND playoffs.  Two lesser players who are truly just lesser players probably aren't better than one Mitch Marner.

It's important to keep in mind that over the last 3 seasons Marner is 4th in NHL scoring.
McDavid (381), Draisaitl (322), MacKinnon (264), Marner (263).  From a PPG perspective Marner drops to 6th (Kucherov jumps to 4th and Matthews is 5th).  Not to mention that Marner got a Selke nod this year while putting up that level of offence.

I don't think you can really find a scenario where the Leafs are a better team trading Marner unless you win the lottery on a prospect or two getting good really fast and becoming unexpected PPG players right away.  That's highly unlikely to happen.

The problem is everything is not ideal. Bringing the 4 back isn't ideal, dealing any of them isn't ideal, letting them walk isn't ideal, and paying them to inflated contracts isn't ideal. It's hard to see any way forward that doesn't come with a decent amount of risk that this team is either functionally the same or risk of taking a step back.

 

[hobarth]

Nik, you're slinging at all the other team building concepts we have put forward, you steadfastly remain in the preCap era even tho teams like Edmonton and Detroit could spend to whatever total they wished.

Today's NHL is totally different, Detroit had stars and then bought the best FAs which enabled them to not graduate homegrown talent for about 20 years, few other teams we willing to spend to their internal Cap, TO could win it all today with the big 4 and Karlsson and a host of other FAs, TO would've been able to keep Hymen and probably have the #1 d-man it hasn't had since, who, Salming.

Detroit signed far more significant players than they traded for, off the top of my head Shanahan, Rafalski, Murphy and others so I fail to see the logic of any mention of the Wings or any team pre Cap or pre lowering of the age of Free Agency.

Dubie failed to realize that a pandemic was just around the corner when he signed M & M plus JT, stupid Dubie but since it did happen a team's chance of success in the playoffs relies on depth with some stars, like we're seeing from Vegas, oh, another fluke Cup team, I guess?

Vegas, a team built around Eichel, Pietrangelo and quality depth, TO has the hardest players to accumulate, stars, Knies represents a great start to gathering quality depth, Rielly does not, a trade to move the overpaid Rielly and Brodie would be a great start, using Nylander, Rielly and Brodie to reshape TO's depth makes sense and is very doable, I'm hearing Nylander for Byram, unlikely because I think Colorado would be crazy to do it, but if possible I think TO should do it.

I don't think M & M or Nylander are overpaid but I do think to continue to pay all of them what they're worth isn't a winning formula, as we've seen/see, unless fans are happy with an awesome regular season team only which we aren't.

As for the Marner wanting Matthews money, we've already been down that road and I doubt very much that Marner is any less aware or comparable to Matthews, in his mind.

So Nik what are you saying, build the Leafs after the pre Cap Detroit model or what, I think we're all confused by you, it's far easier to put posters down than to venture an opinion, as you show by every post you make. 

 

[azzurri63]

There's a lot of opinions on the core and rightfully so. As Bender eluded no matter the path it's a tough road to take whether we trade some of the core, stay with them etc etc. My personal opinion and this is for all on here. Do you honestly think you can win with the current formula? This is my biggest beef with this core. I don't think we can thus we need change. I honestly feel throwing Tavares aside the other 3 are not players built for playoff hockey. I understand the way sports works and contracts increasing but do we honestly feel M & M are deserving of any raises? Both got lucrative contracts from Dubas years ago. I think if we cave in again we are doomed. Hayes as I posted the other day on Overdrive was bang on. Time these guys look at the whole picture other than f'ing the team over again. If not then ship them out and retool. The huge cap we spend on the 4 aint working. You can argue they need more time, maybe figure it out but personally I don't see it happening so for me make some deals.

 

[rdowdall]

Nik, you're slinging at all the other team building concepts we have put forward, you steadfastly remain in the preCap era even tho teams like Edmonton and Detroit could spend to whatever total they wished.

Or, and hear me out on this, he is preaching patience as the team builds around a superstar base that has been created rather than burning it to the ground because a cup hasn't been won within the first 7 years of this team being put together. 

Today's NHL is totally different, Detroit had stars and then bought the best FAs which enabled them to not graduate homegrown talent for about 20 years, few other teams we willing to spend to their internal Cap, TO could win it all today with the big 4 and Karlsson and a host of other FAs, TO would've been able to keep Hymen and probably have the #1 d-man it hasn't had since, who, Salming.

You missed the point on Detroit.  The comparison was not Detroit to Toronto.  It was more Matthews to Yzerman, in which, in Detroit they said similar things about Yzerman's inability to win big games early in his career, and he didn't actually win a cup till he was 31.  So maybe we should give Matthews a couple of more years. 

Detroit signed far more significant players than they traded for, off the top of my head Shanahan, Rafalski, Murphy and others so I fail to see the logic of any mention of the Wings or any team pre Cap or pre lowering of the age of Free Agency.

The top of your head is wrong.  Shanahan was acquired in a trade with Hartford, and Murphy was acquired in a trade with Toronto.  Again, the comparison to Detroit was about how the failures of a team in the playoffs shouldn't rest on one players shoulders.

Dubie failed to realize that a pandemic was just around the corner when he signed M & M plus JT, stupid Dubie but since it did happen a team's chance of success in the playoffs relies on depth with some stars, like we're seeing from Vegas, oh, another fluke Cup team, I guess?

Vegas missed the playoffs entirely last year.  Most people didn't have them getting past Edmonton.  I'm not saying they are a fluke, but they weren't the front runners to win.  Also, go back one year.  Think of how different the Colorado Tampa series was to this years series.  The point is there are no guarantees.  There is no way to predict who will make it next year.  So you build the best team that you can and you give yourself the best chance to win, and having a lineup that includes three superstars in their prime gives you some pretty good odds.

As an aside, are you really saying that Dubas should have planned for a global pandemic two years before it even happened?  Is that what you really believe?

Vegas, a team built around Eichel, Pietrangelo and quality depth, TO has the hardest players to accumulate, stars, Knies represents a great start to gathering quality depth, Rielly does not, a trade to move the overpaid Rielly and Brodie would be a great start, using Nylander, Rielly and Brodie to reshape TO's depth makes sense and is very doable, I'm hearing Nylander for Byram, unlikely because I think Colorado would be crazy to do it, but if possible I think TO should do it.

Vegas has been aggressive for sure, but they are also in cap hell.  If they don't win it this year, they are going to have a lot of heavy lifting over the next couple of years because they don't have a lot of flexibility in their lineup.

I don't think M & M or Nylander are overpaid but I do think to continue to pay all of them what they're worth isn't a winning formula, as we've seen/see, unless fans are happy with an awesome regular season team only which we aren't.

Worked for Pittsburgh.  I think it can work for the Leafs.  This year presents an awesome opportunity.  The roster can be overturned because of so many free agents.  You can fill in some of those spots with younger players, or you can try and fill out the roster with some shrewd signings.  I sure hope melba toast can deliver.

As for the Marner wanting Matthews money, we've already been down that road and I doubt very much that Marner is any less aware or comparable to Matthews, in his mind.

I'm not sure what this means.  I don't know what point you are trying to make. 

So Nik what are you saying, build the Leafs after the pre Cap Detroit model or what, I think we're all confused by you, it's far easier to put posters down than to venture an opinion, as you show by every post you make. 

I am not confused by what Nik is saying.  He is saying that continuing to take runs at the cup with the current team has a higher chance of yielding a cup than moving one of the three and weakening the team overall.

 

[ZBBM]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

 

[Bender]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

Anyone definitely can be, but it's definitely harder with a NMC. It could be a Sundin situation where he just didn't want to to waive it no matter the circumstance.

 

[mr grieves]

The Leafs also don't have that guy knocking at the door to become a top line player...nobody to promote, unless Knies turns into something very very quickly. 

So would you rather have Mitch Marner, or 2 guys at $5.5m a piece contributing 50 points a each?

The problem is who are those 5.5 million guys.  Are they players who step up in the postseason and end up being .8-.9 PPG players in the playoffs or are they guys who are .5 PPG players during the regular season AND playoffs.  Two lesser players who are truly just lesser players probably aren't better than one Mitch Marner.

It's important to keep in mind that over the last 3 seasons Marner is 4th in NHL scoring.
McDavid (381), Draisaitl (322), MacKinnon (264), Marner (263).  From a PPG perspective Marner drops to 6th (Kucherov jumps to 4th and Matthews is 5th).  Not to mention that Marner got a Selke nod this year while putting up that level of offence.

I don't think you can really find a scenario where the Leafs are a better team trading Marner unless you win the lottery on a prospect or two getting good really fast and becoming unexpected PPG players right away.  That's highly unlikely to happen.

The problem is everything is not ideal. Bringing the 4 back isn't ideal, dealing any of them isn't ideal, letting them walk isn't ideal, and paying them to inflated contracts isn't ideal. It's hard to see any way forward that doesn't come with a decent amount of risk that this team is either functionally the same or risk of taking a step back.

But it?d be different. not stale. The Down Goes Brown piece on the end of this era captures my feelings on it.

Marner for Lindholm + Hanifin + CGY 1st
Marner for Thomas + Parayko + one of STL?s 1sts
Marner for Necas + Pesce + pick/prospect
Marner for Byfield + Durzi + Grundstromm + Moore
Or the like

And put the savings (yes, in most cases, the Leafs still come out ahead on salary) toward someone who can get you another 35-40 points instead of the customary 25-30 we get from the bargain bin depth buys.

Whatever. Just make it different. The team is boring. The world?s on fire. LFG.

 

[rdowdall]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

I believe the trouble with this conversation is that it actually needed to happen seven years ago when the Leafs made a push to make the playoffs after drafting Matthews.

 

[hobarth]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

I believe the trouble with this conversation is that it actually needed to happen seven years ago when the Leafs made a push to make the playoffs after drafting Matthews.

I think it was that TO needed to push harder 7 years ago when M & M and WN were enthusiastic rookies willing to do anything to win and TO could've had loads of Cap space. Lou really let us down, didn't recognize an premium  opportunity when TO's most significant assets were on ELCs.

 

[rdowdall]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

I believe the trouble with this conversation is that it actually needed to happen seven years ago when the Leafs made a push to make the playoffs after drafting Matthews.

I think it was that TO needed to push harder 7 years ago when M & M and WN were enthusiastic rookies willing to do anything to win and TO could've had loads of Cap space. Lou really let us down, didn't recognize an premium  opportunity when TO's most significant assets were on ELCs.

I disagree with the approach the Leafs altogether after drafting Matthews.  I think the Leafs came out of the rebuild too soon.  They started to try and build a team that could win without fully stocking the cupboards with young players.  The decision to trade for Andersen and keep players like Bozak and JVR and not to try and turn them into futures put this team behind the 8-ball, which caused them to have to sign players like Tavares.  What if instead of Liljegren, the Leafs had a Heiskanen or a Makar? 

 

[hobarth]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

I believe the trouble with this conversation is that it actually needed to happen seven years ago when the Leafs made a push to make the playoffs after drafting Matthews.

I think it was that TO needed to push harder 7 years ago when M & M and WN were enthusiastic rookies willing to do anything to win and TO could've had loads of Cap space. Lou really let us down, didn't recognize an premium  opportunity when TO's most significant assets were on ELCs.

I disagree with the approach the Leafs altogether after drafting Matthews.  I think the Leafs came out of the rebuild too soon.  They started to try and build a team that could win without fully stocking the cupboards with young players.  The decision to trade for Andersen and keep players like Bozak and JVR and not to try and turn them into futures put this team behind the 8-ball, which caused them to have to sign players like Tavares.  What if instead of Liljegren, the Leafs had a Heiskanen or a Makar? 

What if TO had a Cup, LL wasn't a proper choice for GM and especially Shanahan wasn't GM material. Things were screwed up from the beginning.

 

[rdowdall]

The trouble with this entire conversation is that the Core 4 player who makes the most sense to trade because of his salary is the one who seemingly can't be.

Or can he?

As the saying goes, if Gretzky can be traded, anyone can.

I believe the trouble with this conversation is that it actually needed to happen seven years ago when the Leafs made a push to make the playoffs after drafting Matthews.

I think it was that TO needed to push harder 7 years ago when M & M and WN were enthusiastic rookies willing to do anything to win and TO could've had loads of Cap space. Lou really let us down, didn't recognize an premium  opportunity when TO's most significant assets were on ELCs.

I disagree with the approach the Leafs altogether after drafting Matthews.  I think the Leafs came out of the rebuild too soon.  They started to try and build a team that could win without fully stocking the cupboards with young players.  The decision to trade for Andersen and keep players like Bozak and JVR and not to try and turn them into futures put this team behind the 8-ball, which caused them to have to sign players like Tavares.  What if instead of Liljegren, the Leafs had a Heiskanen or a Makar? 

What if TO had a Cup, LL wasn't a proper choice for GM and especially Shanahan wasn't GM material. Things were screwed up from the beginning.

As fans, I find, that we have a tendency to migrate towards a negative opinion or a positive opinion on the team that we follow.  All of this is on a spectrum with some fans being ways towards the positive outlook of things and some fans being way towards a negative outlook on things.

I think it's important though, regardless if we want to focus on the positive or the negative, to try and not deal in absolutes.  Not just because that is the way of the Sith, but also because nothing in the universe is perfect, so it can't be all bad or all good.

For the most part, I think that Shanahan has done a pretty adequate job.  He assembled a young management team of bright minds, realized they might need an experienced voice, and brought that voice in.  Even my disagreement with the path that the Leafs took after drafting Matthews is more of a personal opinion, because even if the Leafs had tanked for a couple more years, there are no guarantees that they would be better off today.  I just feel that it would have given them a higher percentage of being in a better spot based on what has happened to other teams.  Shanahan botched the Dubas extension this summer, but I don't think that is all on him.  It was just a weird situation all around.  However, overall, when I think of how the Leafs operated before Shanahan came in, they were less professional then than they are today and I think that has to do with the way Shanahan wants to conduct business.  Small bar probably, but at least he jumped it.  However, if Treliving is a bad hire, and things start to go sideways, then my opinion of Shanahan will be that he started strong and then things went off the rails.   

Even the way fans want to remember the Dubas years, there are those that absolutely loved him, and I can see why.  But he wasn't without his stumbles.  I've said before that the decision to not revamp the lineup or collect futures during the year of the bubble was probably a mistake based on his own comments.  I really disliked the Nick Foligno trade.  Overall though I thought that Dubas did a pretty good job of managing the team and giving them a decent shot at winning the cup every year, because you have to start with making the playoffs first, and then go from there.

I don't think things were screwed up from the start per se.  I think they made choices that they thought were the best choices at the time.  I disagreed with them, but I could see their plan was and how their decisions fit that plan, and if I could talk to them, maybe they would admit there was a mistake or two in hindsight.  I am interested in seeing where things go from here, because I think now is where Shanahan starts to get tested, and it may start to unravel a bit on him.  At that point it will probably be time for a new voice at the top.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/apetrielli/status/1668978237467242496

 

[ZBBM]

Petrielli long article comes down to the conclusion that you leave Tavares where he is, as 2C.  He barely glances at the idea of moving him to the wing because it's hard to find PPG centers.  I think he misses the point here.  Tavares can just as easily be a PPG winger, and then you find a better-defensively 2C to pair him with. 

If they can manage to re-sign ROR to anchor a potent 3rd line (and if I'm Treliving I'd work hard to make that fit somehow ? Petrielli says ROR is the best UFA center on the market) then I think it makes sense to shift Tavares to the wing.

 

[hobarth]

Petrielli long article comes down to the conclusion that you leave Tavares where he is, as 2C.  He barely glances at the idea of moving him to the wing because it's hard to find PPG centers.  I think he misses the point here.  Tavares can just as easily be a PPG winger, and then you find a better-defensively 2C to pair him with. 

If they can manage to re-sign ROR to anchor a potent 3rd line (and if I'm Treliving I'd work hard to make that fit somehow ? Petrielli says ROR is the best UFA center on the market) then I think it makes sense to shift Tavares to the wing.

Don't you think TO is slow enough, O'Reilly is already in his 30s and slowing down every year. TO used to have speed?

Petrielli also talks about the 2 player anchors on the top 3 lines, essentially what TO has been doing forever, maybe TO should load up a 1st line and see where that leads, Mitch passing to Matthews and Nylander instead of Matthews and Jarnkrok, Jarnkrok on any of the top 3 lines is a perfect example of a team's lack of depth and he's locked up for 3 more wonderful years, awesome.

 

[Joe S.]

I just love that I had to live through 13 years of Sundin and basically nothing after him, and now the leafs have 4 top tier bonafide players and we?ve spent their entire careers trying to figure out which ones to get rid of.

Honestly being a leafs fan is trying at best.