2019-2020 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion

[herman]

Things I really like that are happening now:

1. Fresh bodies
Players are being cycled in and out of the lineup. It?s hampered somewhat by our cap situation but there?s always one or two players coming in in make-the-cut mode and they know they have a chance to stick on merit due to...

2. Play time
Is getting allocated on a game-by-game basis to whoever?s got it going. No one player can ever really maintain an 82-game run of 100% performance/effort/result. If you?ve got it going that night, coach?s gonna play you and this pushes the parity see-saw on any given shift into the Leafs? favour.

3. Chemistry Experiments
The Leafs have long been set up on plug and play wingers, and now they?re actually being used that way to flex the lineup situationally beyond the usual post-special teams set ups. Is there an opportunity to take an OZ draw against a very tired fourth line? Please enjoy some TOI with 33M worth of firepower. You can bet the staff and R&D team are building up a nice little library of options to mix into future matchups as required.

4. Skillz
Those skill sessions before opportune practices are starting to manifest with regularity. It is most evident in someone like Zach Hyman. He shook off some forechecks while handling the puck that I did not know was in his repertoire resulting in fantastic feeds to Matthews and co. Adding that element to his engine and the chaos gravity he brings to the net front every time, and we will see his linemates flourish in the space he creates for them.

5. Keep the Puck
This is the process: tip the balance of the game at every opportunity. Having the puck is an advantage. Now there are times when having the puck in a certain situation is highly dangerous and it?s be better to move it along quicker. The Leafs are going to get the hang of that in the coming months ? most of our players are very hockey smart. Flipping the switch from finesse to fast and back again will make playing us far less predictable.

 

[disco]

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Things I really like that are happening now:

1. Fresh bodies
Players are being cycled in and out of the lineup. It?s hampered somewhat by our cap situation but there?s always one or two players coming in in make-the-cut mode and they know they have a chance to stick on merit due to...

Based on what I've seen from Engvall and Soup, it's really apparent to me that they should be looking to deal one of Kapenen, Kerfoot or Johnsson in-season to fill more pressing needs.

 

[Kin]

So as of the Christmas break, here's the /82 projections for their three young stars:

Matthews: 52 g, 41a, 93 points

Marner: 30 g, 76 a, 106 points

Nylander: 30g, 30 a, 60 points

They aren't hollow stats either. All three guys have very good possession numbers. Matthews and Nylander are both over 50% on faceoffs. None of them are minuses.

Can all of them improve? Sure. Can they become more well-rounded players? I suppose. But the simple and plain truth is that none of them are underproducing relative to their salaries and all of them are showing important signs of growth.

The stick these guys have been taking all year from some corners has been ridiculous and has way more to do with a heavy dose of confirmation bias dedicated to overstating their deficiencies and, let's be real, effectively blaming them for the fact that the Leafs management didn't surround them with the same sort of team that the Blackhawks did their young stars.

But they're all very good, good value and a lot of fun to watch. Anyone wanting to trade one of them is, quite frankly, nuts.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

But they're all very good, good value and a lot of fun to watch. Anyone wanting to trade one of them is, quite frankly, nuts.

Nah, I don't agree. I don't believe Nylander is in the same category as Tavares, Marner, and Matthews. They need to allocate more resources to the defense, particularly next season. 

 

[Kin]

I don't believe Nylander is in the same category as Tavares, Marner, and Matthews.

I agree. Nylander is in a category with Marner and Matthews in "providing good value for his salary" and Tavares is in a different category.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

But they're all very good, good value and a lot of fun to watch. Anyone wanting to trade one of them is, quite frankly, nuts.

Nah, I don't agree. I don't believe Nylander is in the same category as Tavares, Marner, and Matthews. They need to allocate more resources to the defense, particularly next season. 

I agree. Nylander is in a category with Marner and Matthews in "providing good value for his salary" and Tavares is in a different category.

You're conflating "providing good value" with claiming same players are so valuable that they're untradeable by rational people. That's quite the leap. I don't agree.

 

[Kin]

You're conflating "providing good value" with claiming same players are so valuable that they're untradeable by rational people. That's quite the leap. I don't agree.

Well, no. Typically I tend to write as though we all sort of agree on some elementary principles like "Anyone is tradeable if you get  the right return" and so I think it's largely unnecessary to put in asides to reaffirm that notion. If the Oilers call tomorrow and want to trade McDavid for Marner that would probably be a trade to make.

What I said is that nobody should want to trade them. Tied into that is, I think, the reality that dealing good young forwards for the kind of defenseman that would be a good value return is effectively impossible(or, at least, doesn't happen outside of extremely rare circumstances) and that the UFA market tends to be a lousy area for improving your team in a cost effective way(See, again, Tavares who is probably a best case scenario).

So looking to trade any of these guys on the condition of making a massive overall improvement to the team might be where that instinct is coming from but if you're predicating your desires to trade them something that's pretty unlikely to happen you may as well hope that Sandin-Liljegren each play like all-stars next year rendering a trade unnecessary anyway. If you're going to fantasize about winning the lottery it may as well be the jackpot.

 

[herman]

There?s always been a corner of the fan base that wants to trade the actually good players we have.

 

[L K]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.  The Leafs aren't going to get value for Nylander in that deal and their team isn't better with Adam Larsson on the blueline and Nylander out of the lineup.

 

[Bates]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.  The Leafs aren't going to get value for Nylander in that deal and their team isn't better with Adam Larsson on the blueline and Nylander out of the lineup.

How about the Seth Jones Trade? Brent Burns? Hamilton? They aren't common but they do happen. It's quite possible someone desperate offers one for any of our forwards not named Tavares, Matthews,  or Marner. 

 

[Kin]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.

Exactly. That's the thing people miss and why the Hall situation was so illustrative. Edmonton wasn't looking for a very good defensive prospect to help them win down the line, making Hall available was their attempt to yield the best possible defenseman to help them win now.

That's why the examples people use to try and make the counterargument are examples of rewriting history. Brent Burns was so highly regarded as a defenseman when Minnesota traded him that San Jose used him as a forward for a season and a half before moving him back to defense. Someone like Dougie Hamilton was still getting less than 20 minutes, only available because of a frankly baffling decision by Boston not to pay him a fair contract and still didn't get traded for forwards but picks.

Seth Jones gets brought up a lot and it's almost a fit but at this point Seth Jones is basically becoming the modern day version of "You think we can't trade for a #1 C without giving up a ton, what about Joe Thornton?!?!?". Even if Seth Jones were really an exception, he'd be the exception that proved the rule. But he's not, let's go over some facts about that trade:

1. The fact that Jones was even on Nashville to begin with was a series of weird events. Nashville, a perennial 100 point team, lost Ryan Suter to free agency and then had a weird down year in a strike shortened season to land the #4 pick. Despite being strongest on defense and desperate for scoring, Nashville still drafted Jones because he was incredibly highly regarded and thought to be a likely #1 or #2 pick but fell to #4.

2. Nashville's defense situation went from good to ridiculous as Josi emerged as a Norris candidate and Ekholm and Ellis quickly established themselves as very good players, leaving Jones as the team's #5 defenseman. So he wasn't a top defenseman when he got dealt, but a very very good defensive prospect whose path was blocked.

3. Despite all that, landing Jones still required Columbus to give up the only thing in hockey that might be more valuable than an elite defensive prospect and that's a young goalscoring #1 C with size. The Leafs do have one of those but it's not William Nylander and I wouldn't trade Matthews for an already established Seth Jones.

So, again, it's not that good defensmen aren't ever dealt it's that dangling a good young forward doesn't create that market out of thin air. If a series of weird events caused Philadelphia to want to move Provorov or made Werenski expendable or something like that then, sure, you listen to the call but simply wanting to trade someone like Nylander doesn't make that happen and effectively never has.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Defensive zone tactics:  implementing ?zone structures?...

Jason Spezza explains it best:

The success when you don?t have it is tracking through the middle of the ice and protecting the middle, and then flexing out after that, and not giving up anything through the middle of the ice. At times, we will probably play in our end a little bit, but you try to keep them to the outside. We?ve seen talk of the Islanders and how they?re playing ? sometimes you have to kind of be comfortable playing in your d-zone and letting teams be on the outside, and just not letting them come on the inside. There is a lot of emphasis on puck support and playing with the puck, but once you turn the puck over, the emphasis is to get through the middle as quick as possible, retreat, and flex out from there.?

https://theathletic.com/1470632/2019/12/19/how-sheldon-keefes-parking-the-bus-defence-is-getting-the-maple-leafs-cycled-into-oblivion/

Also here:
https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2019/11/23/jason-spezza-sheldon-keefe-systems/

 

[Bates]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.

Exactly. That's the thing people miss and why the Hall situation was so illustrative. Edmonton wasn't looking for a very good defensive prospect to help them win down the line, making Hall available was their attempt to yield the best possible defenseman to help them win now.

That's why the examples people use to try and make the counterargument are examples of rewriting history. Brent Burns was so highly regarded as a defenseman when Minnesota traded him that San Jose used him as a forward for a season and a half before moving him back to defense. Someone like Dougie Hamilton was still getting less than 20 minutes, only available because of a frankly baffling decision by Boston not to pay him a fair contract and still didn't get traded for forwards but picks.

Seth Jones gets brought up a lot and it's almost a fit but at this point Seth Jones is basically becoming the modern day version of "You think we can't trade for a #1 C without giving up a ton, what about Joe Thornton?!?!?". Even if Seth Jones were really an exception, he'd be the exception that proved the rule. But he's not, let's go over some facts about that trade:

1. The fact that Jones was even on Nashville to begin with was a series of weird events. Nashville, a perennial 100 point team, lost Ryan Suter to free agency and then had a weird down year in a strike shortened season to land the #4 pick. Despite being strongest on defense and desperate for scoring, Nashville still drafted Jones because he was incredibly highly regarded and thought to be a likely #1 or #2 pick but fell to #4.

2. Nashville's defense situation went from good to ridiculous as Josi emerged as a Norris candidate and Ekholm and Ellis quickly established themselves as very good players, leaving Jones as the team's #5 defenseman. So he wasn't a top defenseman when he got dealt, but a very very good defensive prospect whose path was blocked.

3. Despite all that, landing Jones still required Columbus to give up the only thing in hockey that might be more valuable than an elite defensive prospect and that's a young goalscoring #1 C with size. The Leafs do have one of those but it's not William Nylander and I wouldn't trade Matthews for an already established Seth Jones.

So, again, it's not that good defensmen aren't ever dealt it's that dangling a good young forward doesn't create that market out of thin air. If a series of weird events caused Philadelphia to want to move Provorov or made Werenski expendable or something like that then, sure, you listen to the call but simply wanting to trade someone like Nylander doesn't make that happen and effectively never has.

It's odd that you dismiss 3 cases where it has happened and worked out good for the team getting the D but then cling to the Hall example as the rule?? That hasn't exactly happened a lot either. Just because a bad GM made the Hall trade does not mean there can't be a deal for the Leaf's. Heck even that one didn't look that bad after year one.  I know It's rare but when one team has a surplus of quality forwards and another has a surplus of quality D I see no reason a deal to help both could not be reached. I do agree that just dangling the forward and taking the best offer makes no sense for the quality of Nylander, if the offer isnt good enough you keep the player.

 

[Bender]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.  The Leafs aren't going to get value for Nylander in that deal and their team isn't better with Adam Larsson on the blueline and Nylander out of the lineup.

How about the Seth Jones Trade? Brent Burns? Hamilton? They aren't common but they do happen. It's quite possible someone desperate offers one for any of our forwards not named Tavares, Matthews,  or Marner.

Have you seen Brent Burns' stat line lately? It does happen but I'd say it's the exception than the rule. If the Leafs end up getting a guy like Seth Jones then cool, I'm just not sure a guy like that is available.

 

[Bates]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.  The Leafs aren't going to get value for Nylander in that deal and their team isn't better with Adam Larsson on the blueline and Nylander out of the lineup.

How about the Seth Jones Trade? Brent Burns? Hamilton? They aren't common but they do happen. It's quite possible someone desperate offers one for any of our forwards not named Tavares, Matthews,  or Marner.

Have you seen Brent Burns' stat line lately? It does happen but I'd say it's the exception than the rule. If the Leafs end up getting a guy like Seth Jones then cool, I'm just not sure a guy like that is available.

I would trade Nylander today for a guy who would have Burn's career. I would not trade him for present day Burns. You, nor I, have no idea who is available.

 

[bustaheims]

I would trade Nylander today for a guy who would have Burn's career. I would not trade him for present day Burns. You, nor I, have no idea who is available.

No, but we can look at the guys who are good value for Nylander, and make a pretty educated guess as to whether that move makes sense for both teams involved - and there aren?t many that do.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I'm always confused at that.  There isn't a poster on the site would would argue that the Leafs shouldn't trade Nylander if the right deal came around to get a top tier defenseman.  The reality is that forwards never yield you top defensemen.  The Oilers traded Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson.  That's what you get when you trade forwards for defensemen.  The Leafs aren't going to get value for Nylander in that deal and their team isn't better with Adam Larsson on the blueline and Nylander out of the lineup.

How about the Seth Jones Trade? Brent Burns? Hamilton? They aren't common but they do happen. It's quite possible someone desperate offers one for any of our forwards not named Tavares, Matthews,  or Marner.

Have you seen Brent Burns' stat line lately? It does happen but I'd say it's the exception than the rule. If the Leafs end up getting a guy like Seth Jones then cool, I'm just not sure a guy like that is available.

I would trade Nylander today for a guy who would have Burn's career. I would not trade him for present day Burns. You, nor I, have no idea who is available.

Burns is 34, has 5 years left after this at 8 Mill per so it's a pretty easy call there. I think Subban would be available but his numbers are brutal this year. He's struggling bigtime on the Devils. Don't think it would take Willy, money aside, to get him. Not saying I'd want him either at his cap hit for 2 more years.

 

[Bates]

I would trade Nylander today for a guy who would have Burn's career. I would not trade him for present day Burns. You, nor I, have no idea who is available.

No, but we can look at the guys who are good value for Nylander, and make a pretty educated guess as to whether that move makes sense for both teams involved - and there aren?t many that do.

As rumoured for a long time I could see a beneficial deal for both teams between Carolina and Toronto, but it might be less value than Nylander. But in reality I doubt a deal for Nylander will be proposed.

 

[Kin]

It's odd that you dismiss 3 cases where it has happened...

I appreciate that this stuff tends to elude you but what I did was contest that those are three cases where "it" happened. None of the three were top defensemen when they were traded and in at least one case, Hamilton, he emphatically was not traded for a forward. Burns, likewise, was mainly dealt for a pick and a prospect with a 3rd line forward thrown into the deal. The Jones thing is the only trade that structurally resembles what was being suggested and I go into some detail as to why it's a bad comparable.

Again, if we're going to game plan around unlikely things happening we may as well game plan around massive internal growth for the team's defensive prospects.