Your TML Rebuild Plan

[bustaheims]

The Leafs already have a young, talented defenseman they drafted in the top 5. That's something the Oilers never did and he's older than Marner/Matthews/Nylander so he's more likely to line up his prime with theirs.

The Oilers problem wasn't really that they didn't draft defensemen, it's that they drafted bad ones.

And, really, just that they drafted poorly in general when picking outside the top 10.

 

[Kin]

The Leafs already have a young, talented defenseman they drafted in the top 5. That's something the Oilers never did and he's older than Marner/Matthews/Nylander so he's more likely to line up his prime with theirs.

The Oilers problem wasn't really that they didn't draft defensemen, it's that they drafted bad ones.

And, really, just that they drafted poorly in general when picking outside the top 10.

Well, relatively speaking, they didn't really do a great job of drafting inside the top 10 either.

 

[Al14]

The Leafs already have a young, talented defenseman they drafted in the top 5. That's something the Oilers never did and he's older than Marner/Matthews/Nylander so he's more likely to line up his prime with theirs.

The Oilers problem wasn't really that they didn't draft defensemen, it's that they drafted bad ones.

And, really, just that they drafted poorly in general when picking outside the top 10.

I think they made some mistakes with their 1st overall picks too!

 

[Frank E]

In the unlikely event that the Leafs don't sign Stamkos (I know, it's ridiculous to think that they won't), it might be interesting to take a run at Eric Staal for a 1 year deal for too much money, just to flog him at the deadline.

Not sure he'd be up for that, but after last season, he might need a show-me year to get a decent longer term deal.

 

[herman]

In the unlikely event that the Leafs don't sign Stamkos (I know, it's ridiculous to think that they won't), it might be interesting to take a run at Eric Staal for a 1 year deal for too much money, just to flog him at the deadline.

Not sure he'd be up for that, but after last season, he might need a show-me year to get a decent longer term deal.

I don't think he'd be up for a deadline flogging.

 

[Al14]

In the unlikely event that the Leafs don't sign Stamkos (I know, it's ridiculous to think that they won't), it might be interesting to take a run at Eric Staal for a 1 year deal for too much money, just to flog him at the deadline.

Not sure he'd be up for that, but after last season, he might need a show-me year to get a decent longer term deal.

I don't think he'd be up for a deadline flogging.

verb (used with object), flogged, flogging.
1.
to beat with a whip, stick, etc., especially as punishment; whip; scourge.
2.
Slang.

  to sell, especially aggressively or vigorously.
    to promote; publicize.

8)

 

[herman]

In the unlikely event that the Leafs don't sign Stamkos (I know, it's ridiculous to think that they won't), it might be interesting to take a run at Eric Staal for a 1 year deal for too much money, just to flog him at the deadline.

Not sure he'd be up for that, but after last season, he might need a show-me year to get a decent longer term deal.

I don't think he'd be up for a deadline flogging.

verb (used with object), flogged, flogging.
1.
to beat with a whip, stick, etc., especially as punishment; whip; scourge.
2.
Slang.

  to sell, especially aggressively or vigorously.
    to promote; publicize.

8)

I still don't think he'd be up for a deadline flogging.

 

[Al14]

In the unlikely event that the Leafs don't sign Stamkos (I know, it's ridiculous to think that they won't), it might be interesting to take a run at Eric Staal for a 1 year deal for too much money, just to flog him at the deadline.

Not sure he'd be up for that, but after last season, he might need a show-me year to get a decent longer term deal.

I don't think he'd be up for a deadline flogging.

verb (used with object), flogged, flogging.
1.
to beat with a whip, stick, etc., especially as punishment; whip; scourge.
2.
Slang.

  to sell, especially aggressively or vigorously.
    to promote; publicize.

8)

I still don't think he'd be up for a deadline flogging.

Well, he might not want to be whipped viciously, but, he might like to be sold to a possible Stanley Cup contender.

 

[mr grieves]

Thought I'd check the thread out again. Enjoyed it when it was started and alive... A few years on, sorta fun to see how it all turned out. Two key things all of us missed: winning the Matthews lottery (well, LuncheonMeat guessed this) and getting the goaltending sorted.

I've arranged predictions from most conservative to most rosy

LK

I think I see just one or two too many guys who still have something in the tank and are looking for rebound years this year.  I'm expecting a slow start that picks up around the end of November where the Leafs go on a run into January when the first trade gets made to unload one of the one-year rentals.  The Leafs start to wane in the second half but they don't manage to come close to the 51 points put up by the Coyotes.  They finish in 3rd just ahead of Carolina.

Year 1 (15-16): 72 points
Year 2 (16-17): 67 points
Year 3 (17-18): 72 points
Year 4 (18-19): 86 points
Year 5 (19-20): 95 points (playoffs)

Zanzibar

Or, you know, Nylander, Marner, and the other prospects now on board or gotten this year and next top out at an Antropov-like level, or there is no steady improvement, or injuries derail careers, blahda blahda blahda.

I just think it's kind of premature to make predictions about where a team will be in the next X years when they largely depend on guys who have never yet played an NHL game.

Nik

I think any predictions that start with the notion that basically all of the Leafs first rounders will turn into elite players and quickly are probably on the unrealistically optimistic side of things. Just from a strict numbers standpoint odds are that one of Rielly, Nylander, Marner and whoever they draft this year won't be all that big a deal.

It's not a matter of believing in the staff or not on that one either. Most of the best teams, the teams we'll want the Leafs to end up looking like, whiffed on some top draft picks. The Blackhawks took Cam Barker at #3, the Kings took Thomas Hickey at #4, the Lightning took Brett Connolly at #6.

So expecting this team to get close to the playoffs next year [2016-17 -ed.], to me, is more or less expecting every single major prospect on the team to develop exactly the way we want them to as soon as we want them to and I just don't see where that's something anyone within the organization will really be planning for.

I think we're in for something similar to what LK predicts above. Three seasons or so of general lousiness followed by a "Hey, they've really got something going on" season that falls short followed by playoff contention.

herman

My (hopeful) guess:

2015-16:
[snip - ed.]
Kadri/JvR, if still around, are traded at the Draft for primo picks. We roll into the Draft with 12 picks and target high ceiling prospects as usual.

2016-17:
Nylander, Kapanen, Brown, Leipsic, Loov, Percy make the jump to the NHL. We finish in the bottom 5 and draft accordingly. Big trades: Gardiner (for a good pick +) and Bozak (for a song). Rielly is re-upped for $6M+/6yrs. Marner takes over 1C on the Marlies a third into the season.

2017-18:
Nylander starting to separate himself from the pack, and taking Kapanen and Brown along for the ride. Gauthier, Marner, Johnson make the jump and the Leafs are now possession fiends up and down the lineup, led from the backend by Rielly and Marincin. They make a good run at the playoffs but ultimately fall short by 2 spots.

bustaheims

The way I see it, is the next 2 seasons [2015-16 and 2016-17 - ed.], the team will be at or near the bottom of the league. This will be the time for accumulating picks and prospects, developing young players and trading away pieces that aren't expected to be part of the long-term plan. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team didn't sign anyone for longer than 2 years this summer. I really believe 2 more seasons of bottoming out is the plan.

Year 3 [2017-18 - ed.] is going to the when the transition starts to happen, but it'll be largely dependent on what happens with the goaltending. By then, the team will know if Bernier is the guy or not. If not, that'll extend the rebuild a little. Otherwise, I think your timeline is pretty close, CtB. You're just a year ahead of how I see it playing out.

Carlton

The biggest question I think is, what happens in Year 2 [2016-17 - ed.]? I think a lot of people are assuming that we'll have another garbage fire season but I actually think that we'll start to show a decent amount of improvement that season. Especially since both Nylander and Marner will likely be full-time NHLers that season. They'll be far from their peaks but I still think they can have a positive impact on the team. I think that the 16/17 Leafs will look a lot like the 14/15 Panthers did, with Rielly/Marner/Nylander being our Ekblad/Barkov/Huberdeau. The Panthers jumped from 66 points to 91 points there, I don't know if we'll have that big of a jump from 15/16 to 16/17, but I could see us getting to around the mid-80s.

That brings us into Year 3 [2017-18 - ed.]. Our 2016 top-5 first round draft pick likely joins the squad at this time. So we'll have 3 elite, young players still on their ELC in him, Marner and Nylander. We'll have a 23-year old Morgan Rielly entering his 5th NHL season who could very well be a legitimate top pairing NHL defenceman by that point. We could have 27-year old versions of Kadri and Gardiner and a 28-year old version of JVR who would all likely be guys in between 1st and 2nd line status. And that's just what I'm pretty confident in. Toss in a keen signing or trade and a few more prospects like Brown/Kapanen/Johnson who could be NHL players at that point and I think you have a team that could very well be playoff-ready.

Me

I'm on board with CtB's timeline, because I agree that the rebuild started with Rielly. Whether the Leafs were shedding core talent fast enough to draft high enough to begin assembling a core trio of top-5 picks (or whatever it takes to really be a year-in, year-out threat) doesn't mean they haven't been enjoying the benefits of a rebuild (drafting high end talent).

That said, I think the timeline is still largely a matter of choice. That is, if the team doesn't trade Kadri, Gardiner, and JvR in the next year or so, I think there could be enough NHL talent on the roster to shelter the arriving Nylander and Marner such that the team is out of the basement (though not a playoff team) in 2016-17. But if they shed Kadri &c. before next fall, then 2016-17 can be just as brutal as 2015-16 is going to be, and they'll have another top 5 pick, some more prospects/picks that'll need a lot of development, and so an extended rebuild, which lines up with what some folks are anticipating and others are advocating (getting a bit better in 2017-18).

[snip - ed.]

Guess my answer is the future is hard to predict, but status quo says (I think) this team isn't an absolute disaster in 2016-17, and they get better from there.

 

[Kin]

I think my bad prediction there is at least somewhat muted by the fact that A) I really assumed they'd deal JVR/Bozak and B) I still think I'm kind of right about "one of Rielly, Nylander, Marner and (Matthews)" but that one just happens to be Rielly.

And I still kind of think that making the playoffs last year will be bad for the team long term.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think my bad prediction there is at least somewhat muted by the fact that A) I really assumed they'd deal JVR/Bozak and B) I still think I'm kind of right about "one of Rielly, Nylander, Marner and (Matthews)" but that one just happens to be Rielly. 

I too assumed that one or both of Bozak and JVR would be traded and kind of see what not trading them has caused in terms of logjam. I don't mind the youngish ones overcooking in the A, but I don't want to lose good assets for nothing either. I do see the value they bring to this particular team for the entire season, but I want a pick or two back for JVR and I'll take the loss for  Bozak and Komarov and let them walk.

Why do you think it will be Rielly that goes?

 

[Britishbulldog]

I feel it will be Gardiner who might get traded at some point.

I see the talk of trying to get Doughty from LA but I feel that it would be difficult to handle without a major shakeup of the roster. 

We have Liljegren in the fold already who is considered a Karlsson-lite.  It was reported that the Leafs have talked to Igor Ozhiganov who has changed his game from goonery to responsible offensive dman with the hardest shot at the KHL Allstar game  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t962QOidIAs&vl=en  and at 6'2" 210+ lbs he has size to play a heavy game.  http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/411-igor-ozhiganov-russian-defenceman-connected-leafs/  Hopefully he will be coming here this coming summer and is comparable to Trouba-ish and not Gudbranson-ish.

That makes the Leafs LH as Rielly, Gardiner, Hainsey, Rosen, Borgman and Dermott.  The RH will be Zaitsev, Carrick, Liljegren and possibly Ozhiganov. 

In the 2019/20 season the Leafs have 8 players signed for $33 + MIL.  Not signed on forward yet are Matthews, Nylander, Marner and Gardiner. 

Defense: If Ozhiganov does come and plays as well as Zaitsev then I could see him getting a similar multi year $4.5 MIL contract.  Gardiner hopefully signs a Rielly contract of 6 years @ $5 MIL per.  Liljegren should be ready to call up and will still be on his ELC.  Add a 6th LH dman for a $1 or so you have a $22 MIL defense

Offense:Hoping Matthews signs a team friendly $10 MIL x 8 year deal next summer to go along with Nylander and Marner signing team friendly $6.5 MIL 8 year deals.  In this scenario I would still like to sign JVR to keep the 2 duos together: Matthews/Nylander, Marner/JVR and Kadri/Brown.  JVR would have to sign for a $5.5 MIL contract at most with young 3 signing the team friendly deals listed above. 

If JVR isn't re-signed then I see no replacement for his production in the Leafs prospects.  I really don't see any UFAs at his skill level and age ever coming available in this cap era.

The following summer Marleau's $6.25 MIL would be coming off the books giving room to re-sign Liljegren.

 

[Kin]

I too assumed that one or both of Bozak and JVR would be traded and kind of see what not trading them has caused in terms of logjam. I don't mind the youngish ones overcooking in the A, but I don't want to lose good assets for nothing either. I do see the value they bring to this particular team for the entire season, but I want a pick or two back for JVR and I'll take the loss for  Bozak and Komarov and let them walk.

Why do you think it will be Rielly that goes?

That line isn't about one of them being traded. It's about how I thought that some of the rosier predictions were all predicated on all of the Leafs young players developing exactly the way they wanted them to. I thought the odds were that at least one wouldn't. Right now, I think that one is Rielly. Which isn't to say Rielly is a bad player, he's not, but I don't think he's going to develop into an elite top pairing defenseman either.

 

[Kin]

If JVR isn't re-signed then I see no replacement for his production in the Leafs prospects.  I really don't see any UFAs at his skill level and age ever coming available in this cap era.

This is at least in part because most teams have to deal with the reality of not every single one of their players signing the most team-friendly deals imaginable.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

That line isn't about one of them being traded. It's about how I thought that some of the rosier predictions were all predicated on all of the Leafs young players developing exactly the way they wanted them to. I thought the odds were that at least one wouldn't. Right now, I think that one is Rielly. Which isn't to say Rielly is a bad player, he's not, but I don't think he's going to develop into an elite top pairing defenseman either.

Oh, my apologies, misunderstood that one. I agree then, it certainly looks as though Rielly is the one falling a bit behind. I wonder how much of that is due to his injury? I hold out hope that Rielly will be elite.

 

[slapshot]

I think we'll have a better read on Rielly after this season. Last couple of years Babcock seriously focused Rielly on his defensive game, either with a sub-par partner or with Zaitsev who had to spend the year adjust to new league and new environment. Last year Rielly was often the 3rd d-man choice for the power play, behind Gardiner and even Zaitsev. This year, Babs is throwing Rielly over the boards  as the first d-man option on the powerplay, even ahead of Gardiner. This is no accident, just more methodology by Babs in Rielly's development. I have to say Hainsey has been a pleasant surprise in terms of just being very solid. I am not sure why he should be a surprise that way or that he'll be in the top 4 for long, but I thnk pairing him with Rielly for now was a good idea.

 

[Frank E]

I think the problem with Rielly on the PP is that he's just not a threat to score. 

Opposition just doesn't take him seriously as a shooting threat.

I think they might need a guy that's got a bomb, or is at least a greater threat to score.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I think the problem with Rielly on the PP is that he's just not a threat to score. 

Opposition just doesn't take him seriously as a shooting threat.

I think they might need a guy that's got a bomb, or is at least a greater threat to score.

Name the two players with the biggest bombs from the backend on the PP.  To save time, I'll name them for you:

Weber, Burns.

Guess what?  Their power plays are generally ineffective.  Gone are the days of the PP bomb being the most effective way to score. 

https://theathletic.com/78268/2017/08/02/column-why-the-sharks-and-brent-burns-should-stop-emulating-the-warriors/

Five (PP) units scored at least 10.0 GF/60 in a 4F1D. They all had similar shot volumes to the Sharks....
What really sticks out is how often the defensemen on these units ? Torey Krug, Nikita Zaitsev, Andrej Sekera, John Klingberg and Rasmus Ristolainen ? are shooting the puck as compared to Burns. On the modern high end 4F1D power play, the role of the point man in the offensive zone is more to create space by moving the puck than it is to shoot it. That's not what Burns is doing.

https://theathletic.com/100214/2017/09/14/dellow-three-questions-facing-canadiens-at-5-on-4/

The problem is that defencemen who attempt 30 per cent or more of their team's shots at 5-on-4 tend to not be on the ice for a lot of goals scored. Part of the reason a 4F1D is preferable to a 3F2D is that it tends to result in fewer shots from defencemen at the point and more shots created by forwards closer to the goal. As you can see in the graph below, the majority of the defencemen taking such a high percentage of their team's 5-on-4 shot attempts were on power plays that were below league average...... None of the defencemen on the league's really elite units take such a high percentage of their team's 5-on-4 shots.

Rielly and Gardiner are perfect for the PP quarterback role.

 

[Kin]

Seems pretty weak to look at someone like Webber, who's scored more PP goals over the last 3 years than players like Patrick Kane, Vladimir Tarasenko or Evgeni Malkin and say that because his team's PP success rate isn't great that his shot isn't a terribly effective weapon.

And stop posting stuff from the Athletic. If nothing else, it's an ineffective argument to post something saying "look at this chart" when the chart is behind a paywall.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Seems pretty weak to look at someone like Webber, who's scored more PP goals over the last 3 years than players like Patrick Kane, Vladimir Tarasenko or Evgeni Malkin and say that because his team's PP success rate isn't great that his shot isn't a terribly effective weapon.

And stop posting stuff from the Athletic. If nothing else, it's an ineffective argument to post something saying "look at this chart" when the chart is behind a paywall.

Burns also has alot of goals on the PP.  Them having a bomb from the backend is great for THEM scoring goals, but it doesn't make their PP's more effective.  I'd much rather have Rielly and Gardiner quarterbacking a top 5 PP than Weber/Burns bombing shots to the tune of a PP getting average results.  That doesn't seem like a weak argument to me.  However, if we were to add someone like them to our PP, as long as they aren't bombing all the time, it might actually create more opportunities for our forwards- but that goes against the instincts of a Weber/Burns so I do wonder if it would really work better in practice.  Its not like San Jose doesn't have a heck of a forward group that should get more scoring opportunities, but instead, Burns is bombing away.

And I believe this forum does not have rules about posting from the Athletic.  I'll continue to post as I see fit, and provide the quotes from it necessary to prove the point without posting the whole article.  If you have a subscription, then great, you can see more details.  If not, well that's too bad for you.