TRADE DAY: Sandin / Engvall / Schenn
- Thread starter bustaheims
- Start date
herman said:
I don't think he's anywhere near as good offensively as he showed in his first 4 games with Washington, just like I don't think he's anywhere near as bad defensively as he was in his next 4 games. But wow that a wild split there. 20% on-ice shooting percentage in his first 4 games, 80% on-ice save percentage in his next 4 games. How does that happen?
Bender said:
I used to appreciate Jack's writing, but yeah. It really took him 3 weeks to write "his contract and because he struggles in front of the net"?
bustaheims
Well-known member
CarltonTheBear said:
Sometimes, regression comes at you fast.
bustaheims said:
I hope he just keeps having alternating stretches of 4-5 games of being awesome then awful, just to really make Leafs fans minds melt.
herman
Well-known member
CarltonTheBear said:
Mail it in Monday!
I will say, Sandin?s present ceiling isn?t pushing him in over Rielly or Giordano, so basically it came down to what his floor in the playoffs would be. We got someone who could fill in his offensive minutes, feel okay with scratching, and a late first, all before his value depreciated further by not getting playing time (or exposed again in the playoff limelight).
Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott, Engvall are all in the same boat and lately Dubas has just pulled that trigger a little more ruthlessly than in the past.
ZBBM
Well-known member
This talk about his ceiling/floor is premature IMO. Just like I didn't jump on here with a bunch of I Told You So's when he had that crazy start with WSH, now I won't be getting too worked up over his recent struggles. I'm confident he'll turn in a solid career and we'll look back at this trade as a mistake.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
For whatever it's worth I really did just want to point out how weird stats/sample sizes can be as opposed to looking like I'm celebrating his struggles. We've all said our pieces about Sandin and the trade and 4 or 8 or even 18 regular season games aren't really going to give a definitive answer as to whether the Leafs were right or wrong to make the deal.
And really there might never even be a definitive answer to that question. Sandin can end up having a solid career but the Leafs can still get a lot of value out of that 1st rounder, however they end up using it.
TO is 11-7 since Feb. 1, this surprised me, I don't feel TO's play justifies this record, seems to me TO is being outplayed and outshot pretty much every game.
This is the same type of TO going into the playoffs for the last 6 years, I'm always expecting that changes like Plakanec, Lubushkin, etc. will somehow magically transform the Leafs into end of the season gladiators and playoff winners but I feel it's the same old, same old.
I guess even a single round victory should be considered worthwhile but it won't feel that way.
This is the same type of TO going into the playoffs for the last 6 years, I'm always expecting that changes like Plakanec, Lubushkin, etc. will somehow magically transform the Leafs into end of the season gladiators and playoff winners but I feel it's the same old, same old.
I guess even a single round victory should be considered worthwhile but it won't feel that way.
I felt Sandin's numbers were crazy good in those early games and that he would come back "to earth"
I can't say I predicted they would swing to crazy bad in +/-. I looked at some of the goals against and he's getting blown past by some fast forwards sometimes. Some of it was his team was behind and taking chances and some of it was his team was weakened by trades and injury.
I still think he's going to be a top 4 D in the league for years to come. 2nd PP and ES.
On the surface, I'm not comfortable with the trade. I'm still trying to get my head around the 9 dmen thing. Maybe something fell through. Not sure of that - just a feeling.
I'm not into "the one that got away". After years of cheering for guys like Sandin through their development, I grow to kind of like them or pull for them. That doesn't seem to stop when they get traded - why should it? I'm pleased Joey Anderson scored a few for Chicago - he was stuck behind Marner, Nylander & Jarnkrok - I'm still hoping he makes it. Engvall scored some for the Islanders - good for him.
I'm not that impressed with the Leafs play since all the trades. Hasn't been all bad. I expected some turmoil due to the number of new faces. I think they have more of that to play through. I think they're counting on Knies being able to help. So I guess my jury is out until sometime after that.
There have been some notable good things: Matthews & Rielly appear to have found some of their game. That would be big if that holds. Murray, who I haven't been a big fan of, is showing signs of finding his form - in spite of how many he's let in. McCabe, Schenn, Acciari & Lafferty (& O'Reilly when he returns) have all had some good performances and look like they can help. Not sure about Gustafsson. For the most part, if not completely, Dubas got players who could help.
Hopefully, they can settle it down and keep home ice for the Tampa series.
I can't say I predicted they would swing to crazy bad in +/-. I looked at some of the goals against and he's getting blown past by some fast forwards sometimes. Some of it was his team was behind and taking chances and some of it was his team was weakened by trades and injury.
I still think he's going to be a top 4 D in the league for years to come. 2nd PP and ES.
On the surface, I'm not comfortable with the trade. I'm still trying to get my head around the 9 dmen thing. Maybe something fell through. Not sure of that - just a feeling.
I'm not into "the one that got away". After years of cheering for guys like Sandin through their development, I grow to kind of like them or pull for them. That doesn't seem to stop when they get traded - why should it? I'm pleased Joey Anderson scored a few for Chicago - he was stuck behind Marner, Nylander & Jarnkrok - I'm still hoping he makes it. Engvall scored some for the Islanders - good for him.
I'm not that impressed with the Leafs play since all the trades. Hasn't been all bad. I expected some turmoil due to the number of new faces. I think they have more of that to play through. I think they're counting on Knies being able to help. So I guess my jury is out until sometime after that.
There have been some notable good things: Matthews & Rielly appear to have found some of their game. That would be big if that holds. Murray, who I haven't been a big fan of, is showing signs of finding his form - in spite of how many he's let in. McCabe, Schenn, Acciari & Lafferty (& O'Reilly when he returns) have all had some good performances and look like they can help. Not sure about Gustafsson. For the most part, if not completely, Dubas got players who could help.
Hopefully, they can settle it down and keep home ice for the Tampa series.
I still maintain this isn't down to the additions though. The big boys still generally play together and Bunting's been a mess for quite some time. You'd like a bit more offense from Lafferty or McCabe I guess but how much has Willy scored in his last 10? Their play doesn't suddenly go off the rails because you've swapped a third pairing defenseman and a couple of 3rd and 4th liners. I mean we even saw Simmonds back in the lineup on the weekend.
Gustafsson, I saw a move from him on Friday, he side stepped a player who was attempting to block his shot and then got his shot off, that wasn't earth shattering but it was something I never see from Rielly, Rielly would/does shot directly into/at the blocking player, consistently.
Rielly is maddening, he accumulates points because of who he plays with and his overall game has a facade of cred because of his offensive numbers. He plays protected minutes, plays with the superior players but because of his limitations TO's ability to progress is severely limited, Rielly is not a #1 d-man, Gustafsson has more #1 offensive d-man's brains and I doubt Rielly is better defensively.
It's understandable that Keefe is experimenting with the d, Rielly shouldn't be TO's first option on the #1 PP, Gustafsson might not be as well but I sure hope that's something Keefe will try.
Rielly is maddening, he accumulates points because of who he plays with and his overall game has a facade of cred because of his offensive numbers. He plays protected minutes, plays with the superior players but because of his limitations TO's ability to progress is severely limited, Rielly is not a #1 d-man, Gustafsson has more #1 offensive d-man's brains and I doubt Rielly is better defensively.
It's understandable that Keefe is experimenting with the d, Rielly shouldn't be TO's first option on the #1 PP, Gustafsson might not be as well but I sure hope that's something Keefe will try.
With TO's draft results, trading Engvall for a 3rd rounder is the same as giving him away or letting him walk.
Chandler Stephenson with Vegas might be a similar type of story, he was a Capital for about 4 1/2 years and in his best year he got to play 12 minutes per game, a 3rd/4th line tweener then he gets traded to Vegas and immediately starts producing 22 pts in 41 games with about 16 minutes of icetime, his next year with Vegas 51 g 35 pts, last year 79 g 64 pts, this year 70 g 54 pts. These stats came from a player that in his best year with Washington managed 18 pts. I can't say for sure but I suspect Washington coaches didn't like Stephenson, another example might be Bunting who spent 6 years in the Arizona system but was never really given a proper NHL chance except his last Arizona year where he got to play 21 games and scored 10 g and 3 a. 10 goals in 21 games and Arizona still wouldn't risk less than 1 mil. on Bunting.
I would say that Bunting as a 3rd liner probably isn't much of an impact player or very productive but his skillset tied in with better players has made him into an asset. TO's latest Bunting/Stephenson, Mason Marchment.
Players fall between cracks in every organization, sometimes it pays to have someone different evaluating your team's assets. Being willing to experiment with players probably would mean that, that players' potential has the greatest chance of being recognized/utilized. I've noticed that Keefe is willing to experiment with known assets like having Jarnkrok on TO's top 2 lines but he was never willing to move Engvall up, ever.
In all of Engvall's years with TO he was never allowed to play in TO's top 6, same with Anderson and many others, players have been moved up from the Marlies where they played on the top 2 lines and were productive but once they actually play for TO they become 4th liners and it's really hard to soar with eagles when paired with turkeys. I can remember when Babs was determined to discipline Marner and Nylander, he had them play on TO's 4th lines, neither looked good there.
Chandler Stephenson with Vegas might be a similar type of story, he was a Capital for about 4 1/2 years and in his best year he got to play 12 minutes per game, a 3rd/4th line tweener then he gets traded to Vegas and immediately starts producing 22 pts in 41 games with about 16 minutes of icetime, his next year with Vegas 51 g 35 pts, last year 79 g 64 pts, this year 70 g 54 pts. These stats came from a player that in his best year with Washington managed 18 pts. I can't say for sure but I suspect Washington coaches didn't like Stephenson, another example might be Bunting who spent 6 years in the Arizona system but was never really given a proper NHL chance except his last Arizona year where he got to play 21 games and scored 10 g and 3 a. 10 goals in 21 games and Arizona still wouldn't risk less than 1 mil. on Bunting.
I would say that Bunting as a 3rd liner probably isn't much of an impact player or very productive but his skillset tied in with better players has made him into an asset. TO's latest Bunting/Stephenson, Mason Marchment.
Players fall between cracks in every organization, sometimes it pays to have someone different evaluating your team's assets. Being willing to experiment with players probably would mean that, that players' potential has the greatest chance of being recognized/utilized. I've noticed that Keefe is willing to experiment with known assets like having Jarnkrok on TO's top 2 lines but he was never willing to move Engvall up, ever.
In all of Engvall's years with TO he was never allowed to play in TO's top 6, same with Anderson and many others, players have been moved up from the Marlies where they played on the top 2 lines and were productive but once they actually play for TO they become 4th liners and it's really hard to soar with eagles when paired with turkeys. I can remember when Babs was determined to discipline Marner and Nylander, he had them play on TO's 4th lines, neither looked good there.
herman
Well-known member
Engvall is great, nigh elite, from the DZ up to about the OZ blueline. After that, his value plummets because his shots (and the shots he helps generate) are generally empty calorie shift-enders into the crest, or turnovers.
Except that one time he caught Ullmark by surprise.
https://twitter.com/LeafsJelly/status/1614441881458335746
His playstyle matched a 3rd line transition winger (really good at controlled exits, per Cam Charron). He drives a lot of shot-stat value, but the Leafs' OZ playstyle either needs more puck creativity, or elite forechecking for anyone to even sniff third-banana minutes on one of the top lines; transition play is something those two lines already have in spades. Dubas did Engvall a favour by trading him to a team that only has Mat Barzal to transition the puck.
Except that one time he caught Ullmark by surprise.
https://twitter.com/LeafsJelly/status/1614441881458335746
His playstyle matched a 3rd line transition winger (really good at controlled exits, per Cam Charron). He drives a lot of shot-stat value, but the Leafs' OZ playstyle either needs more puck creativity, or elite forechecking for anyone to even sniff third-banana minutes on one of the top lines; transition play is something those two lines already have in spades. Dubas did Engvall a favour by trading him to a team that only has Mat Barzal to transition the puck.
ZBBM
Well-known member
empty calorie shift-enders into the crest, or turnovers
Right on the mark. His signature curl-and-spin shot from about 20 feet out after skating beautifully, giraffely around for awhile, works about 5% of the time. So frustrating that he couldn't develop some more diverse attacks.
Right on the mark. His signature curl-and-spin shot from about 20 feet out after skating beautifully, giraffely around for awhile, works about 5% of the time. So frustrating that he couldn't develop some more diverse attacks.
Highlander
Active member
I still miss my Giraffe.Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said: