2018 Offseason Review

[Coco-puffs]

We are not in a position to take on cap dumps.  I wish people would stop suggesting it.  It pushes us into bonus overages and that will be a problem next year.

I dunno man, that's a lot of room. Taking a mid-season cap dump (that expires at the end of this year) for an extra asset while leaving bonus cushion room is not impossible. Let's say Dallas is pretty close at the beginning of January and has a bead on a younger centre (e.g. Duchene) but wants to clear some today space. I'll take the remainder of Spezza's deal + fancy pick or prospect. Cap room gets banked over the course of the season.

Also, the 14.8 Million Jeffler indicated in his tweet is with a 19-man roster (11F, 6D, 2G).  Nylander getting signed only takes you to 20.  So add between 2 and 2.5 million to fill out the rest of the roster spots (ie, 1-2 F and 1-2 D).  Leaves 5.3 Million in space (3.7 of which we should leave available for bonuses)

By the deadline, yes, you could probably fit Spezza's contract in but by that time the Stars will probably have enough room to absorb a big contract as well since they won't be right up against the cap all year either.  (They have 8.3M in space with two RFA's who won't command a lot left to sign, plus roster filler.)  They won't need to dump Spezza at that time and certainly won't pay us in assets to take him then.

There are probably other examples you could find though, so sure... but wouldn't you rather use the extra cap space we've built up over the course of the season to ADD a d-man at the deadline instead of a cap dump???

 

[herman]

Also, the 14.8 Million Jeffler indicated in his tweet is with a 19-man roster (11F, 6D, 2G).  Nylander getting signed only takes you to 20.  So add between 2 and 2.5 million to fill out the rest of the roster spots (ie, 1-2 F and 1-2 D).  Leaves 5.3 Million in space (3.7 of which we should leave available for bonuses)

Ah, I wasn't account for filling out the full roster there. Thanks!

 

[Guilt Trip]

I appreciate that Leafs fans have no real reason to not be thrilled with this off-season in light of the big move so to get that out of the way: Hooray for Tavares! He's big and good and handsome and so on.

But that said...wow. It's Tavares and a bunch of pieces who could charitably be called depth. I recognize that the cap issues mean that we shouldn't have expected much more but it does make you wonder what this team would look like if Tavares had grown up a Red Wings fan.

I can't help but agree. Unless Dubas was the difference between Tavares signing here and not, I'd call the offseason fall slightly to the side of underwhelming, to this point.

Really? If he didn't sign here it would be underwhelming but HE DID!! I bet 30 other teams wished they'd had such a crappy off season and especially the 5 that were in on JT.

 

[princedpw]

If we were taking a cognitive behavioral therapy class here, I?d suggest that some of us were showing signs of discounting the positive.

 

[Kin]

I really don't think there's any disconnect between being happy the Leafs signed Tavares and looking at the other areas the team still needs to address.

Likewise, when for so long we've been sold this rebuild as part of a big, overarching plan it's fair to wonder about such a big part of it being something that was largely unexpected and almost entirely outside of their control(while still acknowledging the good job they did to convince him to sign here).

 

[Phileas Fogg]

If we were taking a cognitive behavioral therapy class here, I?d suggest that some of us were showing signs of discounting the positive.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still in disbelief that Tavares is a leaf. I'm over the moon, like everyone else here.... already bought a shirt.

But I look at the rest of the list from herman's mail, and can't help but feel if Lou was still sitting in the chair and accomplished the same, there wouldn't be quite the same reaction. The big 3 are still not extended, the Johnsson deal isn't to my liking, at least, although to some folks' point, it might have been the only option, and the defense... well, I was hoping for an addition.

Still time, I know.

 

[herman]

It's okay to enjoy a windfall. I can't remember where I posted it earlier last season, but I was hoping we'd take a major swing at Tavares, rather than spend assets on maybe picking up up Doughty/Karlsson because I believe overwhelming forward depth supported by mobile defense is the way to go. High scoring defensemen are as cap heavy as 1Cs but not as influential in scoring (even though they play more minutes).

Pretty sure if Lou was in the big chair we'd still be sporting Martin and Komarov in the lineup, at least.

Also, Marincin and Holl are not insubstantial upgrades from Polak and (tired) Hainsey. The plan has always been to build through the draft and maximize development and then make trades with the asset value. The list of players who were scrap heap pick ups that have turned into players of interest continues to balloon. Tavares was successfully wooed on the basis of that plan and the people in place; the good fortune was the self-roshambo the Islanders pulled off.

I don't know that they'll do this, but shifting Gardiner to the top pair (Gardiner-Rielly) is a huge step up for the defense corps, as the bottom four is easily rounded out with some combination of Dermott, Marincin, Rosen, Hainsey, Holl, Carrick, Zaitsev, Ozhiganov.

 

[Kin]

Also, Marincin and Holl are not insubstantial upgrades from Polak and (tired) Hainsey. The plan has always been to build through the draft and maximize development and then make trades with the asset value. The list of players who were scrap heap pick ups that have turned into players of interest continues to balloon. Tavares was successfully wooed on the basis of that plan and the people in place; the good fortune was the self-roshambo the Islanders pulled off.

Most of what I read seemed to think that Tavares was won over on the basis of playing with the elite talent the Leafs drafted in the top 10, not the trash heap AHL depth that has yet to yield anything resembling a significant NHL contributor.

But kudos on trying to sell Jake Gardiner as being a significant upgrade on Jake Gardiner.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm with Nik on this one. I think herman has a bit too rosy of an outlook on our AHL players.

I'm not as down on Zaitsev as most are, but that's a pretty terrible bottom four defense if Gardiner-Rielly are the top pair.

I really don't understand the love for Holl. Sure he's been very good on the Marlies, but he's only played two NHL games and will be almost 27 years old when the season starts (26.75 years). And Marincin; I've been pulling for him, but he's similar to Holl, in that he's 26 years old and if he hasn't made it by now, chances are slim. I still think he can be a consistent NHLer, but he's a bottom pairing guy.

We really don't know what we're getting in Ozhiganov. Free agents like Rosen, Borgman, and Zaitsev even tend to be massively over-hyped.

 

[herman]

Most of what I read seemed to think that Tavares was won over on the basis of playing with the elite talent the Leafs drafted in the top 10, not the trash heap AHL depth that has yet to yield anything resembling a significant NHL contributor.

I get what you're saying here with the NHL track records being short/non-existent/replacement level; I think in a Cap system, the path to success is to pick up a defenseman on the cheap (draft, import free-agency, trade throw-in) before they start to establish a record and build them up to the point they have value. Obviously a top 10- pick helps a lot, but top 10 defensemen picks are not nearly as strong an indicator of talent as it is for forwards.

I'm not as down on Zaitsev as most are, but that's a pretty terrible bottom four defense if Gardiner-Rielly are the top pair.

I really don't understand the love for Holl. Sure he's been very good on the Marlies, but he's only played two NHL games and will be almost 27 years old when the season starts (26.75 years). And Marincin; I've been pulling for him, but he's similar to Holl, in that he's 26 years old and if he hasn't made it by now, chances are slim. I still think he can be a consistent NHLer, but he's a bottom pairing guy.

We really don't know what we're getting in Ozhiganov. Free agents like Rosen, Borgman, and Zaitsev even tend to be massively over-hyped.

Time and opportunity and the right development path are the keys to turning longshots into layups. Ellis and Eckholm were both 2009 picks (1st, 4th) and they both took about 5-6 years to establish themselves. What we have now that we didn't have before are a burgeoning pool of prospects and options that are on the cusp (1-2 years) of landing full time. Even if they don't, they're league-minimum cap hits rounding out the bottom of our lineup with already 2-3 years of familiarity with our system. Maybe a couple of them turn into core players (Dermott, Liljegren).

There's a marked difference in players like Marincin, Rosen, Dermott, Holl, and even Liljegren once they've had Marlie time. Seeing as how the program just started 4 years ago, there is a harvest coming.

I haven't dug into the numbers too thoroughly yet, but regarding age-curves and primes, I think there are different peaks and durations of peak performance for every player, and to apply a general template to all of them is overlooking opportunity. Top flight picks do peak and sustain it pretty much for all of their 20s, but that is so, so rare. The art is in identifying the player profiles that can be developed to their peaks and timing the system to have a constant flow of peaking players land with the big team, and contract them for your projected length of peak performance.

 

[Frank E]

There's a marked difference in players like Marincin, Rosen, Dermott, Holl, and even Liljegren once they've had Marlie time. Seeing as how the program just started 4 years ago, there is a harvest coming.

Sure, guys like Marincin and Holl, Lo Verde, they've turned into better AHLers, and helped that team win a Calder Cup.  I think we're looking to develop players with the ability to be good NHL players.  They didn't invest in the Marlies development program to try and eke out a fringe 7th d-man out of a pool of 26 year old career AHLers.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Anyone else scared to look at the next expansion draft?

The Leafs will be losing a valuable asset for sure this time.

 

[herman]

There's a marked difference in players like Marincin, Rosen, Dermott, Holl, and even Liljegren once they've had Marlie time. Seeing as how the program just started 4 years ago, there is a harvest coming.

Sure, guys like Marincin and Holl, Lo Verde, they've turned into better AHLers, and helped that team win a Calder Cup.  I think we're looking to develop players with the ability to be good NHL players.  They didn't invest in the Marlies development program to try and eke out a fringe 7th d-man out of a pool of 26 year old career AHLers.

How do you believe good NHL players are developed if not with the exact same techniques as the ones that take a fringe ECHLer into a top AHLer? Is not Marincin and Holl and Marchment and Moore's turnaround a great indicator of our program's efficacy? Even Roman Polak got better from playing here. Every player has a base starting point and a level they can reach with development. The goal of the program is to make Maple Leafs, or make trade chips to be spent for Maple Leafs.

 

[mr grieves]

Also, Marincin and Holl are not insubstantial upgrades from Polak and (tired) Hainsey. The plan has always been to build through the draft and maximize development and then make trades with the asset value. The list of players who were scrap heap pick ups that have turned into players of interest continues to balloon. Tavares was successfully wooed on the basis of that plan and the people in place; the good fortune was the self-roshambo the Islanders pulled off.

Most of what I read seemed to think that Tavares was won over on the basis of playing with the elite talent the Leafs drafted in the top 10, not the trash heap AHL depth that has yet to yield anything resembling a significant NHL contributor.

I'm pretty sure I came across him mentioning the Calder Cup. Obviously, you're right about the headline of the pitch -- Matthews, Marner, Nylander, and plan for keeping them -- but quote I saw gave me the impression that the AHL team's success and its ability to graduate players (Dermott, Kapanen, Johnsson) was probably part of the pitch. It is, at least, useful support for the claim that the Leafs will be icing a contending team of multiple elite talents drafted in the top 10 surrounded by supporting class of quality players.

 

[Frank E]

How do you believe good NHL players are developed if not with the exact same techniques as the ones that take a fringe ECHLer into a top AHLer?

I'm not a hockey development expert, but I'd guess that more talented guys can do things that less talented guys can't.  So you'd have to have some advanced training for those guys.

Is not Marincin and Holl and Marchment and Moore's turnaround a great indicator of our program's efficacy? Even Roman Polak got better from playing here.

I don't know if they turned around, or just sort of progressed.

Every player has a base starting point and a level they can reach with development. The goal of the program is to make Maple Leafs, or make trade chips to be spent for Maple Leafs.

I agree.  I think where we disagree is that you're suggesting they've made Marincin and Holl into contributing NHLers, and I'm not so sure.  Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.  I think the program had a positive impact on Nylander, but he was a top-10 talent.  Brown and Hyman are also good NHL contributors, and Johnsson and Kapanen look promising. 

But on defense, we haven't seen the same sort of development.  Dermott looks good, but after that there's a pretty steep drop off.  I'm not counting Liljegren, since he hasn't really had a chance yet.  Here's a list of defensemen in the minors system in 15-16:

2 Andrew Campbell
3 T.J. Brennan
4 Connor Carrick
4 Frank Corrado
6 Andrew Nielsen
10 Stuart Percy
27 David Kolomatis
41 Justin Holl
50 Viktor Loov
61 Rinat Valiev
5 Jared Cowen
5 Ty Stanton
6 Scott Harrington
8 Eric Baier
25 James Martin
43 Brenden Miller
44 Taylor Doherty
59 Zach Bell
59 Willie Corrin

I think we can say that there are zero impact defensemen developed out of this bunch.  The Marlies have done a nice job with some forwards, but they really haven't done a good job developing defensemen.

 

[Kin]

I get what you're saying here with the NHL track records being short/non-existent/replacement level; I think in a Cap system, the path to success is to pick up a defenseman on the cheap (draft, import free-agency, trade throw-in) before they start to establish a record and build them up to the point they have value. Obviously a top 10- pick helps a lot, but top 10 defensemen picks are not nearly as strong an indicator of talent as it is for forwards.

I'll be sure to mention to Scott Niedermayer, Zdeno Chara, Chris Pronger, Drew Doughty and the like that their teams did success the wrong way. Maybe they'll give back their rings?

No matter how you add contributing NHL talent, the point is to add it. Believing in their ability to find that talent in harder to find places is fine but I don't think that's any more or less practical than, say, believing in their ability to also be able to find a truly elite defender in the top 10 even if other teams occasionally fail.

 

[Kin]

I'm pretty sure I came across him mentioning the Calder Cup. Obviously, you're right about the headline of the pitch -- Matthews, Marner, Nylander, and plan for keeping them -- but quote I saw gave me the impression that the AHL team's success and its ability to graduate players (Dermott, Kapanen, Johnsson) was probably part of the pitch.

I don't know, I'm going to stay out on my limb and say "Hey man, we managed to develop 3 players who scored a combined 10 goals last year from our crackerjack farm system" didn't play the biggest role in their pitch.

 

[Kin]

I agree.  I think where we disagree is that you're suggesting they've made Marincin and Holl into contributing NHLers, and I'm not so sure.  Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

I think just sort of in general this underscores the whole issue here. All of us who are posting on a hockey board in mid-July are obviously interested in the process of team building and discussing the finer points of player acquisition. That's a good thing and it's interesting and it's part of the broader hobby of being a sports fan but there's a big difference between being interested in how the sausage gets made and enjoying a delicious breakfast.

I'm not a Leafs fan because I want them to sign John Tavares. Signing John Tavares doesn't really do much for me as a fan. Even the biggest off-season move is still pretty dry in terms of what I like about hockey. The reward is the Leafs winning games. When John Tavares contributes to the Leafs being an exciting team to watch that wins games? That's the payoff, that's the windfall. Not some guy I don't know signing a huge contract. Is the Tavares move, on the whole, a good one for achieving the Leafs' objectives? I'm not sure, and I think it's fair to ask the question, but I don't think it's right to confuse that with not "enjoying" it potentially bearing fruit.

The same goes with any sort of drafting/development program. Being as I'm not a AHL fan and the Calder Cup generally means nothing to me, any sort of
drafting or development strategy or program "pays off" in developing a higher than normal amount of guys who contribute to the team winning NHL games. Are the Leafs doing that? I think that's still TBD. I think you can point at some guys who've gone through the system and are so far ok NHL players but I'm guessing you can do that for most teams.

Jeez, for all the talk of how Dubas and Co. really shifted things around and disrupted the system with all of their "We want to draft and develop good players" innovation I don't think there's a point in time where you can look at the Leafs roster and not see a handful of reasonably decent players who passed through the Leafs' AHL affiliate at some point. Is the current crop better than average? I'm not sure.

I think there's actually something fairly prudent about waiting to see if these things actually pay off before handing out credit.

 

[Deebo]

Anyone else scared to look at the next expansion draft?

The Leafs will be losing a valuable asset for sure this time.

If they Leafs end up losing a valuable asset, it means they have alot of valuable assets, which is good.

 

[Frank E]

Anyone else scared to look at the next expansion draft?

The Leafs will be losing a valuable asset for sure this time.

If they Leafs end up losing a valuable asset, it means they have alot of valuable assets, which is good.

Well, I hope it goes better than it did last time.

I wonder if we'll find out who decided on that protected list.