2016 Summer Housekeeping Thread

[Frank E]

I think a lot of people want to see roster spots left open for the up-and-comers...and the fact that they just signed a couple of guys that don't have a lot of upside upsets that line of thinking.

I also think that many liked the result of the past season in terms of picking 1st overall, and that they'd like to see something similar this season...almost like the tank movement really took hold, and just as many were jumping aboard, MLSE kind of changed direction. 

With this sort of conflict in team building philosophy, I think it's bothering people to really not understand where the hell they're going with this, and I think that's where the frustration comes from. 

I'm just going to wait and see what they do the rest of the way before game 1 of the reg. season before I start to lose my mind.

 

[Kin]

I think a lot of people want to see roster spots left open for the up-and-comers...and the fact that they just signed a couple of guys that don't have a lot of upside upsets that line of thinking.

Sort of? But do people really want to see an up and comer, that is someone with real promise, put into the roles that Martin and Polak are likely to fill? Do we even have legit up and comers on the backend who Polak supplants?

There are going to be a lot of young players on the team next year. This doesn't change that.

I also think that many liked the result of the past season in terms of picking 1st overall, and that they'd like to see something similar this season...almost like the tank movement really took hold, and just as many were jumping aboard, MLSE kind of changed direction. 

I really don't think they did. The team that finished dead last wasn't a team stacked with promising young players. It was a team mainly full of mediocre veterans. So objecting to the Leafs adding a couple of mediocre veterans on that account seems pretty weak sauce. I'd say we have pretty good evidence that Roman Polak doesn't take this team anywhere.

The Andersen trade is the weird one to me but even then that's because I don't look at his numbers as making him likely to be a guy who drags the team out of the basement. That makes the price they paid/contract they gave him debatable but I don't think it really makes for a change in direction.

 

[TBLeafer]

I found something interesting.  The last time we picked 1st, Ballard had a bunch of kids running around with no direction at an average age of just 23.1 (20 players that played 40 or more games).

The average age of the coming season's team looks to be about 26 and that's with 4-6 'rookies' being stabilized by vets.

You can obviously disclude Robidas from the roster, which I have done.

Salming the only real notable vet in '85-86.

 

[Kin]

I found something interesting.  The last time we picked 1st, Ballard had a bunch of kids running around with no direction at an average age of just 23.1 (20 players that played 40 or more games).

The average age of the coming season's team looks to be about 26 and that's with 4-6 'rookies' being stabilized by vets.

You can obviously disclude Robidas from the roster, which I have done.

Salming the only real notable vet in '85-86.

Sorry, but what exactly are we supposed to infer from that? I mean, outside of the fact that it's not entirely true(depending on your definition of veteran or notable, I suppose).

 

[TBLeafer]

I found something interesting.  The last time we picked 1st, Ballard had a bunch of kids running around with no direction at an average age of just 23.1 (20 players that played 40 or more games).

The average age of the coming season's team looks to be about 26 and that's with 4-6 'rookies' being stabilized by vets.

You can obviously disclude Robidas from the roster, which I have done.

Salming the only real notable vet in '85-86.

Sorry, but what exactly are we supposed to infer from that? I mean, outside of the fact that it's not entirely true(depending on your definition of veteran or notable, I suppose).

With nearly 3 years average age difference on our team from then to now, we obviously have better vet support for Marner and Matthews, than Iafrate and Clark had.

We won't just have a bunch of kids with no direction or vet support of significance running around in a men's league after all. 

 

[Kin]

With nearly 3 years average age difference on our team from then to now, we obviously have better vet support for Marner and Matthews, than Iafrate and Clark had.

We won't just have a bunch of kids with no direction or vet support of significance running around in a men's league after all. 

I think "direction" in any meaningful sense comes from a coaching staff as opposed to other players. And like I said, that 85-86 team wasn't just kids either. In addition to Salming, Marian Stastny, Rick Vaive and Peter Ihnacak were all around and 25+

So I don't know that there's much to really suggest that there's anything cumulative about that. Or much of anything to it in the first place. The Oilers, who I don't like using as a go to example for everything but whatever, certainly had a bunch of bodies around the last few years dragging the average age up. Even well respected guys like Ference and Smyth and so on.

So the idea that it means much at a glance seems pretty tenuous.

 

[herman]

This is the second time you've conflated me with the larger fanbase/blogosphere reaction in the past week, WIGWAL. I choose to be flattered. I assure you I am (still) forming my own conclusions, and here is where I happen to do it. I liked our draft for the most part. It befuddled me, but I don't think I felt extremely negative about it.

Nik is correct in saying:

I just think that the Leafs are in a bit of a weird transitional place right now. I think a lot of people thought that with the Leafs largely out of the tear down phase what you'd see was a focus only giving PT to either prospects or more established long term pieces and fewer of the one year deadline flip deals we saw last year(especially because the strategy didn't work out great last year).

My expectation was that this was the 'playing out the string' year to rid ourselves of a lot of contract flotsam from the last regime. Adding bottom-roster vets at FA prices, at first blush, struck me as more of a tank move (or the far more disturbing Burke move), than a let's grow move.

I see value in having Polak and Martin, thanks for showing me, to both shelter the youth and to challenge them to truly win their spots; I just thought some had done plenty to earn those spots already and I'd rather see them play (and fail, and grow, and succeed) than the names we added and risk losing someone we've invested development time in (Corrado/Carrick/Marincin).

It remains to be seen whether or not Management is going to follow through, but they appear to be setting up a Hunger Games for training camp; that's pretty exciting. I was also very happy we didn't sign Stamkos.

 

[TBLeafer]

With nearly 3 years average age difference on our team from then to now, we obviously have better vet support for Marner and Matthews, than Iafrate and Clark had.

We won't just have a bunch of kids with no direction or vet support of significance running around in a men's league after all. 

I think "direction" in any meaningful sense comes from a coaching staff as opposed to other players. And like I said, that 85-86 team wasn't just kids either. In addition to Salming, Marian Stastny, Rick Vaive and Peter Ihnacak were all around and 25+

So I don't know that there's much to really suggest that there's anything cumulative about that. Or much of anything to it in the first place. The Oilers, who I don't like using as a go to example for everything but whatever, certainly had a bunch of bodies around the last few years dragging the average age up. Even well respected guys like Ference and Smyth and so on.

So the idea that it means much at a glance seems pretty tenuous.

How long after that was Vaive kept around for again?  Three years average age difference is significant when there is a projected influx of teens and tweeners.  I mean, wasn't it even MORE of a mens league back then and you ice a team with the average age of just 23?

Daoust adds to your 25 + group as well.  I call a 25+ group experienced players in their prime. When in your mind does a player reach 'vet' status?  When they reach UFA years?  30+? 5 years consecutive NHL experience?

I think this team is better equipped currently to shelter the influx currently than what was Clark's rookie season.  We won't know until next April if my theory is correct.

My theory FTR is that the 2016-17 Leafs will be a fair deal better than the 1985-86 Leafs due to better overall vet support. An average of 26 year old will prove to be a better balanced team than one with an average age of 23.

 

[Tigger]

I don't think you can really compare eras like that, things are vastly different now than they were then.

 

[Kin]

How long after that was Vaive kept around for again?  Three years average age difference is significant when there is a projected influx of teens and tweeners.  I mean, wasn't it even MORE of a mens league back then and you ice a team with the average age of just 23?

Nope. The percentage of men in the league remains a steady 100%. There still have not been women in the NHL aside from an exhibition game stunt.

And Vaive left after the 86-87 season.

Daoust adds to your 25 + group as well.  I call a 25+ group experienced players in their prime. When in your mind does a player reach 'vet' status?  When they reach UFA years?  30+? 5 years consecutive NHL experience?

It's not something I've given a lot of thought to because it seems like a fairly meaningless status. Especially in light of what we've seen in recent years with so many teams achieving success with young players in leadership roles.

I think this team is better equipped currently to shelter the influx currently than what was Clark's rookie season.  We won't know until next April if my theory is correct.

My theory FTR is that the 2016-17 Leafs will be a fair deal better than the 1985-86 Leafs due to better overall vet support. An average of 26 year old will prove to be a better balanced team than one with an average age of 23.

Yeah, I don't know if I really think the big problem with the 85-86 team was their lack of veterans as opposed to, you know, just being terrible. Like I said, I don't know if a convincing case can be made for the cumulative effect of veteran presence. Especially over such a gap in time.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think you can really compare eras like that, things are vastly different now than they were then.

Why not?  It was much more rough and tumble and that was the lineup Ballard brought to the dance. 

Wanna count how many from that group were 24 and under?  Talk about exposing rookies...

 

[Tigger]

I don't think you can really compare eras like that, things are vastly different now than they were then.

Why not?  It was much more rough and tumble and that was the lineup Ballard brought to the dance. 

Wanna count how many from that group were 24 and under?  Talk about exposing rookies...

First off, Ballard alone brings enough crazy into the equation to scuttle analysis but the game, the league, everything is so different. I think you could make a general argument that say, having vets is important in helping the youth develop in the way you want but not in any real direct comparison between teams/years like that.

 

[Frank E]

I don't think you can really compare eras like that, things are vastly different now than they were then.

Why not?  It was much more rough and tumble and that was the lineup Ballard brought to the dance. 

Wanna count how many from that group were 24 and under?  Talk about exposing rookies...

First off, Ballard alone brings enough crazy into the equation to scuttle analysis but the game, the league, everything is so different. I think you could make a general argument that say, having vets is important in helping the youth develop in the way you want but not in any real direct comparison between teams/years like that.

And it's almost impossible to quantify anyways, so it's really tough to argue and support a claim like that.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think its hard to quantify the 2016-17 Leafs having a stronger season than the 1985-86 Leafs, come April.  The end of season points totals will speak for themselves as to which one had the more successful season.

 

[Frank E]

I don't think its hard to quantify the 2016-17 Leafs having a stronger season than the 1985-86 Leafs, come April.  The end of season points totals will speak for themselves as to which one had the more successful season.

Your claim is that they'd be better because of "vet support".  That's practically impossible to prove, unless you're able to measure it.

 

[Kin]

Sorry, but why is being better than the 85-86 Maple Leafs an important benchmark either way? I mean, the Leafs were better than them last year too. The Cap floor virtually guarantees any modern team will have a better record than that team unless you're pulling a Buffalo and really desperately trying to do worse.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I see little point in comparing teams 30 years apart simply because they both had the first overall pick. The NHL then and now are way too different. Might as well compare the Leafs in 2016 to the 2016 76ers.

I have zero problem with Martin and Polak, and Andersen for that matter, playing this year. I am a bit fearful of the contracts Martin and Andersen got, but that's the cost of doing business in the NHL. Leafs management believes it's worth the risk, I'm happy to watch it play out. I certainly don't want to watch Hyman play like an AHLer for 82 games simply because we have no one else to take that roster spot. (Not to pick on Hyman, whom I actually like and have high hopes for.)

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think its hard to quantify the 2016-17 Leafs having a stronger season than the 1985-86 Leafs, come April.  The end of season points totals will speak for themselves as to which one had the more successful season.

Your claim is that they'd be better because of "vet support".  That's practically impossible to prove, unless you're able to measure it.

Okay.

https://prezi.com/9nr_o3lzqmln/does-the-average-age-of-an-nhl-hockey-team/

Looks like an average team age between 25-27 is a magic number of sorts.

Yes there is a weak positive correlation between older average age teams and winning.

23.1 average age doesn't even show up anywhere, where winning is concerned.

 

[bustaheims]

https://prezi.com/9nr_o3lzqmln/does-the-average-age-of-an-nhl-hockey-team/

Looks like an average team age between 25-27 is a magic number of sorts.

Yes there is a weak positive correlation between older average age teams and winning.

23.1 average age doesn't even show up anywhere, where winning is concerned.

Correlation does not equal causation. In a league where the majority of teams fall into the average age range of 25-27, the majority of successful teams will be in the average age range of 25-27.

 

[TBLeafer]

https://prezi.com/9nr_o3lzqmln/does-the-average-age-of-an-nhl-hockey-team/

Looks like an average team age between 25-27 is a magic number of sorts.

Yes there is a weak positive correlation between older average age teams and winning.

23.1 average age doesn't even show up anywhere, where winning is concerned.

Correlation does not equal causation. In a league where the majority of teams fall into the average age range of 25-27, the majority of successful teams will be in the average age range of 25-27.

How many do you figure in '85-86, when the Leafs had 57 points in 80 games fell into that category? 

23.1 vs. +/-26 should be a quantifiable no brainer no matter what decade you're in.  This season's group is a far more stable one, with a far better mix of players for a Leafs 1st OA to start their career journey in, compared to Toronto's team when Clark was drafted.