Armchair GM 2018-2019

[Kin]

When has having a real Norris contender type ever been required to build a competitive team? The Leafs of the late 90's, early 2000's didn't have anyone like that and they were plenty competitive. Heck, all sorts of teams have had one-off deep playoff runs with downright mediocre defenses.

Competition, here we come.

 

[herman]

I think there's a cap allocation program there though, right?

I mean, you can put $10m into a guy that plays 25 mins a night, and skimp on your bottom pairing.  But icing a corps of 6 X $4m-$5m puts you in ~$27m tied up in defense.

And this is exacerbated by the fact that this strategy has to include "putting your resources into high skill forwards", which then will mean more $$ tied up in forwards.

That's not untrue, but it's not like all 6 of them will be on their second/third contracts at the same time. It's most likely you'll be paying UFA level money for 1 or 2 (keepers), RFA contract money for 3-4, and ELC money for 1-2.

 

[Kin]

There are even some notable cup winners. The '90 Oilers, '93 Canadiens, '04 Lightning, '06 Canes...

 

[rdowdall]

There are even some notable cup winners. The '90 Oilers, '93 Canadiens, '04 Lightning, '06 Canes...

So once every 14 years or so.  Leafs are almost guaranteed to win it.

 

[Kin]

So once every 14 years or so.  Leafs are almost guaranteed to win it.

Nah, there are other examples. The '96 Avs and '99 Stars depending on how you see Sandis Ozolinsh and Sergei Zubov. Then there's the '95 Devils where Niedermayer wasn't yet in his prime and Stevens was into the "World's Greatest #2D" phase of his career. Then you've got the first and third Crosby/Malkin cups.

Thing is you could probably make similar lists about any one thing in isolation. #1C or a superstar goalie...there have been a bunch of teams winning the Stanley Cup without them either. Teams can win a Stanley Cup with weaknesses but they usually have some crazy edge elsewhere to compensate whether it's multiple HOF level C's or all-time great goalies or what have you.

So it's not that it's not true, it's that it's true of everything. The idea behind targeting a #1C or #1D or whatever has never been that they were fundamental necessities for a certain level of success, but that you wanted to do whatever you could to increase your chances. Those are good things to have. Not having them requires something exceptional elsewhere.

The problem then becomes that we might remember the '06 Canes or '90 Oilers but we don't remember the 9 or 10 teams every year that were similarly flawed who didn't win the Cup. If you build a flawed team the odds are tremendously against having huge success but possible? Sure.

Especially nowadays. The only thing required to win a cup is a pretty good team and some timely goalkeeping. It's not much of a target but that's what it is. It's not best practices or anything but, heck, anyone can roll a hard 8.

 

[herman]

So basically, it's good to have a 1D, but no need to blow up the prospect cupboards or splurge for one on the free market unless you're in a position to do so, and better to just draft your darndest and develop them in house?

 

[Kin]

So basically, it's good to have a 1D, but no need to blow up the prospect cupboards or splurge for one on the free market unless you're in a position to do so, and better to just draft your darndest and develop them in house?

Heck man, there's no need at all. True happiness comes from within, not shiny metal trophies.

 

[Frank E]

Nik's drunk again guys.

 

[Kin]

Nik's drunk again guys.

Oh Frank, you know as well as I do it was Lao Tzu who said that we should be content with what we have and rejoice in the way things are. Once we realize that there is nothing lacking, the whole world is ours.

All this time, the true Stanley Cup was in our hearts.

 

[rdowdall]

So once every 14 years or so.  Leafs are almost guaranteed to win it.

Nah, there are other examples. The '96 Avs and '99 Stars depending on how you see Sandis Ozolinsh and Sergei Zubov. Then there's the '95 Devils where Niedermayer wasn't yet in his prime and Stevens was into the "World's Greatest #2D" phase of his career. Then you've got the first and third Crosby/Malkin cups.

Thing is you could probably make similar lists about any one thing in isolation. #1C or a superstar goalie...there have been a bunch of teams winning the Stanley Cup without them either. Teams can win a Stanley Cup with weaknesses but they usually have some crazy edge elsewhere to compensate whether it's multiple HOF level C's or all-time great goalies or what have you.

So it's not that it's not true, it's that it's true of everything. The idea behind targeting a #1C or #1D or whatever has never been that they were fundamental necessities for a certain level of success, but that you wanted to do whatever you could to increase your chances. Those are good things to have. Not having them requires something exceptional elsewhere.

The problem then becomes that we might remember the '06 Canes or '90 Oilers but we don't remember the 9 or 10 teams every year that were similarly flawed who didn't win the Cup. If you build a flawed team the odds are tremendously against having huge success but possible? Sure.

Especially nowadays. The only thing required to win a cup is a pretty good team and some timely goalkeeping. It's not much of a target but that's what it is. It's not best practices or anything but, heck, anyone can roll a hard 8.

I'll always remember the San Jose Sharks. 

Also great quote by Alexander Daigle after being drafted first overall.  "I'm glad I got drafted first, because no one remembers number two."

It was Chris Pronger.

 

[mr grieves]

So once every 14 years or so.  Leafs are almost guaranteed to win it.

Nah, there are other examples. The '96 Avs and '99 Stars depending on how you see Sandis Ozolinsh and Sergei Zubov. Then there's the '95 Devils where Niedermayer wasn't yet in his prime and Stevens was into the "World's Greatest #2D" phase of his career. Then you've got the first and third Crosby/Malkin cups.

Pens '17 (or was it '16), Caps '18... although maybe I'm behind on how we rate Carlson?

Thing is you could probably make similar lists about any one thing in isolation. #1C or a superstar goalie...there have been a bunch of teams winning the Stanley Cup without them either. Teams can win a Stanley Cup with weaknesses but they usually have some crazy edge elsewhere to compensate whether it's multiple HOF level C's or all-time great goalies or what have you.

I think that's probably the main thing. Compensate for your weakness by having some ridiculous strength elsewhere to compensate. Once it was clear the Leafs were done drafting in the superstar spot (top 5 or so?) and didn't really knock it out of the park with Rielly, I think we all realized their edge would have to be at forward -- if they, in fact, have an edge. Time will tell.

 

[Kin]

Pens '17 (or was it '16), Caps '18... although maybe I'm behind on how we rate Carlson?

Yeah, I mentioned the third Crosby/Malkin cup.

I think that's probably the main thing. Compensate for your weakness by having some ridiculous strength elsewhere to compensate. Once it was clear the Leafs were done drafting in the superstar spot (top 5 or so?) and didn't really knock it out of the park with Rielly, I think we all realized their edge would have to be at forward -- if they, in fact, have an edge. Time will tell.

Well, you say that but unless you're counting on Matthews/Marner to be Crosby/Malkin(who established themselves as Crosby/Malkin pretty early in their careers) then by "edge" at forward you're probably talking about depth and I'm not sure there's an example of a really successful team without stars in net or on the blueline and who won because of a lot of forward depth.

 

[mr grieves]

Well, you say that but unless you're counting on Matthews/Marner to be Crosby/Malkin(who established themselves as Crosby/Malkin pretty early in their careers) then by "edge" at forward you're probably talking about depth and I'm not sure there's an example of a really successful team without stars in net or on the blueline and who won because of a lot of forward depth.

Well, I'm not "counting on" anything and think it's as likely as not that they end up like the Sharks... but, if not, a combo of the two, maybe? The Leafs won't be the VGK. They'll have stars at forward, but maybe not generational talents... Matthews + Marner won't be Crosby + Malkin, but what if you throw in a Nylander? -- and maybe you've got stars but not HoFers and depth. Plus a blue line that isn't "weak" (like Pittsburgh last year) but generally fine in the way Gus described (platoon of great to ok #3s). 

I think your initial post made the point that you can find examples of plenty of ways of winning, if you pick one thing and isolate it. There's probably a path forward for the Leafs. It won't involve having Drew Doughty or Sidney Crosby or anyone in their ballpark. But it's not a bad thing -- thinking as a fan who likes watching teams get built -- that they have a core with some very good pieces -- great, even, if we allow the term for folks who don't reach Crosby/Malkin heights -- and now a GM who seems focused on optimizing everything you don't just luck into by sucking hard enough and winning the ping pong balls at the right time.

 

[Kin]

I think your initial post made the point that you can find examples of plenty of ways of winning, if you pick one thing and isolate it.

I suppose so except one thing I think you'd be hard pressed to find would be an example of winning where the team didn't have anything particularly exceptional about them. Again, those Penguins won with that defense but with guys like Crosby/Malkin, not just stars. The late 90's Red Wings won with Chris Osgood, but also with one of the best rosters ever assembled. '93 Habs didn't really have any superstars...except the guy in net. Remember that "ridiculous strength" you mentioned. That seems like a requirement and some stars and depth isn't a ridiculous strength. That's something that, like I said, has been had by lots and lots and lots of teams that haven't won and very, very few who have, if any.

Really the only example I can think of a team winning without any sort of generational talents is the '06 Hurricanes(and maybe the '04 Lightning). Which is kind of a flukey win in a flukey year. Even still it's aiming pretty low.

 

[rdowdall]

I think your initial post made the point that you can find examples of plenty of ways of winning, if you pick one thing and isolate it.

I suppose so except one thing I think you'd be hard pressed to find would be an example of winning where the team didn't have anything particularly exceptional about them. Again, those Penguins won with that defense but with guys like Crosby/Malkin, not just stars. The late 90's Red Wings won with Chris Osgood, but also with one of the best rosters ever assembled. '93 Habs didn't really have any superstars...except the guy in net. Remember that "ridiculous strength" you mentioned. That seems like a requirement and some stars and depth isn't a ridiculous strength. That's something that, like I said, has been had by lots and lots and lots of teams that haven't won and very, very few who have, if any.

Really the only example I can think of a team winning without any sort of generational talents is the '06 Hurricanes(and maybe the '04 Lightning). Which is kind of a flukey win in a flukey year. Even still it's aiming pretty low.

In those years, the Lightning and Carolina had players that elevated to the point where they were in the conversation for being among the best at their position.  Staal in the case of the Hurricanes and Martin St. Louis in Tampa.

The case for the Leafs could be that while they don't have consistent generational talents like Malkin and Crosby, it could be that if Nylander, Matthews, and Marner all have their best years over the same time period, then that might give the Leafs an edge.  If Rielly and Andersen also have their best years in that time frame as well, then it would only increase their chances.

However, that's a pretty big if, and far from a certainty, and it could also go the other way where Matthews has a good year, but Marner and Nylander don't, or Nylander and Marner have a good year, and Matthews doesn't.  This is what happened to them during that last two playoffs.  Marner was pretty good, but Nylander and Matthews had a bad series against the Bruins.  Last year, Matthews was pretty good against the Caps, but Marner looked pretty invisible. 

When you have stars like Crosby and Malkin, where you can pencil them in as being among the most dominate players in the game, then you increase your chances of winning a cup.  It really takes the strength of a team to power them through in the playoffs.  For example, the years where Crosby was hurt, or where Malking wasn't at the dominate level he is at now, the Penguins didn't have great playoffs. 

 

[rdowdall]

From:
https://www.tsn.ca/talent/draft-week-countdown-top-3-priorities-for-canada-s-7-1.1115928

3. Save Smitty: A bona-fide backup is critical for 36-year-old . It?s not a stretch to the say that Calgary?s playoff hopes were extinguished with a quarter season of  between the pipes with a .904 save percentage.

McBackup would look good in Red.

 

[Kin]

The case for the Leafs could be that while they don't have consistent generational talents like Malkin and Crosby, it could be that if Nylander, Matthews, and Marner all have their best years over the same time period, then that might give the Leafs an edge.  If Rielly and Andersen also have their best years in that time frame as well, then it would only increase their chances.

But that makes it sound as if you're reading this "edge" we're talking about as just anything that a team might have that will help them win. But in this scenario, where Nylander, Marner and Matthews all have big seasons at once...is that significantly different than what Boston got this year from their big 3 forwards? Or Washington from theirs? Or Tampa? Or Winnipeg? We agreed it's probably not what Pittsburgh got from theirs so it's an edge on what? It seems like having three good forwards having big years is effectively the minimum requirement for a team being in the league's top 8, not something that gives you a leg-up on everyone else.

 

[rdowdall]

The case for the Leafs could be that while they don't have consistent generational talents like Malkin and Crosby, it could be that if Nylander, Matthews, and Marner all have their best years over the same time period, then that might give the Leafs an edge.  If Rielly and Andersen also have their best years in that time frame as well, then it would only increase their chances.

But that makes it sound as if you're reading this "edge" we're talking about as just anything that a team might have that will help them win. But in this scenario, where Nylander, Marner and Matthews all have big seasons at once...is that significantly different than what Boston got this year from their big 3 forwards? Or Washington from theirs? Or Tampa? Or Winnipeg? We agreed it's probably not what Pittsburgh got from theirs so it's an edge on what? It seems like having three good forwards having big years is effectively the minimum requirement for a team being in the league's top 8, not something that gives you a leg-up on everyone else.

I guess I can't quantify what is needed to put a team over the top.  Take the Leafs from this year for example.  How are the standings different, and where do the Leafs end up if the following is true:

Matthews plays 82 games, has 50 goals and gets 95 points
Nylander plays 82 games and gets 90 points
Marner plays 82 games and gets 88 points

These are just random numbers that I am throwing out there, but having three players on a team that are dominate like that is something that doesn't happen very often.  That's Pittsburgh territory.  So if it all of that happens this past year, and the rest of the team stayed at the levels that they did ( forgetting that there is probably an impact elsewhere on the team to JVR and Kadri ), how far do you envision this team making it.  When I say big years, that's what I am thinking from Marner, Nylander, and Matthews.  I think they have the talent to hit those numbers at least once in their careers.  I just don't think that they can do it consistently year after year. 

Other things do com in to play here.  For example Boston's perceived shortcoming was that their offence was on one line, that the big three had to play together in order to produce.  That's different than Pittsburgh's big three that can produce on different lines. 

 

[Kin]

Matthews plays 82 games, has 50 goals and gets 95 points
Nylander plays 82 games and gets 90 points
Marner plays 82 games and gets 88 points

Again, I think that's a situation that would have them among the teams with the best three forwards in the league, not a step or two above that.

But also, and this is where just raw point totals aren't a ton of help, is that one year of producing like Malkin-Crosby-Kessel isn't necessarily the same of one year of that level of play.

 

[rdowdall]

Matthews plays 82 games, has 50 goals and gets 95 points
Nylander plays 82 games and gets 90 points
Marner plays 82 games and gets 88 points

Again, I think that's a situation that would have them among the teams with the best three forwards in the league, not a step or two above that.

I agree with you that this is the sort of best case scenario that the Leafs can hope for.  Unless the luck out and get a bonafide #1 dman from somewhere, then they have to hope that this sort of thing happens in a year or for a couple of years, and in that one of those years the chips sort of fall in the Leafs favor and they get to the cup final.  I'm just saying that a case could be made that if Marner, Nylander, Matthews all have one or two seasons where they are considered among the most dominate forwards in the League, than in those one or two seasons then the Leafs could probably be considered a cup contender. 

Is that better than building a team that has strength throughout the roster and a league wide top end player at every position.  Not in my mind, no.  I agree with what you have said in the past, which is to paraphrase a bit, it's about maximizing your chances and having the largest possible window to win a cup year in and year out over an extended period.