Armchair GM 2018-2019

[Kin]

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. 

Right but what I'm saying is that a year where Matthews/Nylander/Marner combine to score 260-270 points or so is almost certainly going to be the result of one of two things:

1) Those three have progressed to the point where those point totals are genuine reflections of who they are as players

2) It's kind of flukey and they're playing above their heads(or their shooting percentages are abnormally high or what have you)

If it's the former, then they basically are the Penguins. And I don't think it's the sort of thing that would fade out or not be a threat to happen again and again. That would be good.

If it's the latter though, I don't think that really makes them contenders in any meaningful sense. The team might have a lot of points and have a high seed but I still think they'd be weaker in most areas, significantly so in some case, than most cup winners are.

 

[rdowdall]

2) It's kind of flukey and they're playing above their heads(or their shooting percentages are abnormally high or what have you)

If it's the latter though, I don't think that really makes them contenders in any meaningful sense. The team might have a lot of points and have a high seed but I still think they'd be weaker in most areas, significantly so in some case, than most cup winners are.

I guess where I have a difference of opinion on this is that I don't know if it's really all that flukey.  I think players can progress, and have career years for a variety of reasons, and then maintain that level for a couple of years, and then fall back to the pack.  Players like Modano, Gilmour, Messier in my mind fall in to this category.  They had a couple of years where they were right at the top of the heap, and their teams benefited from it.  In the Modano and Messier cases, their teams won cups, and in the Gilmour case, well not so much.  To me this is the difference between the very good, and the all time great sort of players.  The all time greats do it year after year after year.  I expect Matthews, Marner and Nylander to have a couple dominate years in the league, where they are considered among the best in the league at their positions.  I just don't know if they will all be at the same time. 

I also don't think that just because Marner, Matthews, and Nylander have great years, that it means that the team is probably weaker in other areas.  As I pointed out earlier, the Leafs this year had a pretty good year, and the big three were no where near a Crosby, Malkin, Kessel level.  So if they had bumped their performance levels up to those levels, and they were insulated by the likes of a Kadri, JVR, Bozak, Rielly, Gardiner, and  Andersen, then I could see that team going far.  Even in that first round, if Matthews, Nylander and Andersen show up for the complete series, they probably make it through to the next round.

Would I say they are definite cup winners?  No probably not, but I also wouldn't be completely shocked if they made it all the way.  I would agree though, that it will be harder to have the kind of scoring depth that the Leafs have right now moving forward because of the cap, and if Marner, Matthews and Nylander have a couple of years like a Crosby, Malkin, and Kessel, then they are going to want to get paid like it.  Really, they haven't at all at this point in their careers, and there is talk that they want to be paid like it anyways.   

 

[Kin]

I guess where I have a difference of opinion on this is that I don't know if it's really all that flukey.  I think players can progress, and have career years for a variety of reasons, and then maintain that level for a couple of years, and then fall back to the pack.  Players like Modano, Gilmour, Messier in my mind fall in to this category.  They had a couple of years where they were right at the top of the heap, and their teams benefited from it.  In the Modano and Messier cases, their teams won cups, and in the Gilmour case, well not so much.  To me this is the difference between the very good, and the all time great sort of players.  The all time greats do it year after year after year.  I expect Matthews, Marner and Nylander to have a couple dominate years in the league, where they are considered among the best in the league at their positions.  I just don't know if they will all be at the same time.

I think you're kind of misinterpreting what I'm saying there. It's not that any upswing in production is necessarily a fluke but rather that if those three have years like that it's either the result of something flukey(which is why point totals aren't a great metric) or a genuine reflection of their play(which is good but would be the Crosby/Malkin model, if only for a short time). You seem to be saying that if those three all have years at the same time where they're legitimately among the best players in the league that would put the Leafs into contender-hood. I don't necessarily disagree but I think that the odds of all of that lining up(all three being guys who have a few years where they legitimately play over their heads and all of those years lining up exactly) seem like we're doing that "So you're saying there's a chance" thing from Dumb and Dumber.

I'm not entirely with you on the examples though. Here's my take on them:

1) Modano makes the least sense to me. There's nothing about his 98-99 season that's unusual at all production-wise. In fact, in the 8 years from 95-96 to 02-03 Modano never had a full season under 77 points or above 85. In the year Dallas won the Cup, he was smack dab in the middle of that with 81 points. It seems to me that Dallas' cup has less to do with Modano elevating his game than it does with things like bringing in a couple of big deal additions in Hull and particularly Belfour.

2) The '90 Oilers really strike me as more of an example about how flukey things can happen more than anything else. It was a really weird year. 3 of the final 4 teams had 90 points or less(including Washington with 78 points). I also kind of wonder if Messier's big year is really a question of him having the best year of his life vs. just a difference in opportunities from being the #1 guy instead of the the #2. I'm not sure, in context, his year that year is really a big step up from the rest of his time in Edmonton.

3) I guess Gilmour fits the best into that but I can't help but feel like we remember that season a little rosier than is maybe warranted. Gilmour certainly was great that year but I'm not sure anyone would really think he was nudging up against Lemieux and Gretzky. He finished 2nd in Hart voting, sure, but a lot of that was narrative driven. He wasn't a 1st or 2nd team all-star.

I also don't think that just because Marner, Matthews, and Nylander have great years, that it means that the team is probably weaker in other areas. 

To use your example, if Marner/Matthews/Nylander were so superhumanly great this year that the Leafs won the cup then I don't think there's any real question that the defense would still be considered one of the worst defenses to have won a cup and Andersen one of the more mediocre goalies to do so.

 

[rdowdall]

I think you're kind of misinterpreting what I'm saying there. It's not that any upswing in production is necessarily a fluke but rather that if those three have years like that it's either the result of something flukey(which is why point totals aren't a great metric) or a genuine reflection of their play(which is good but would be the Crosby/Malkin model, if only for a short time). You seem to be saying that if those three all have years at the same time where they're legitimately among the best players in the league that would put the Leafs into contender-hood. I don't necessarily disagree but I think that the odds of all of that lining up(all three being guys who have a few years where they legitimately play over their heads and all of those years lining up exactly) seem like we're doing that "So you're saying there's a chance" thing from Dumb and Dumber.

Yep, totally misunderstood you.  I thought you were saying that if Matthews, Marner and Nylander elevated to that point that it was probably due to a fluke.  Sorry about that.

Although, all I am taking from that above paragraph is that you are saying that there's a chance.

I'm not entirely with you on the examples though. Here's my take on them:

1) Modano makes the least sense to me. There's nothing about his 98-99 season that's unusual at all production-wise. In fact, in the 8 years from 95-96 to 02-03 Modano never had a full season under 77 points or above 85. In the year Dallas won the Cup, he was smack dab in the middle of that with 81 points. It seems to me that Dallas' cup has less to do with Modano elevating his game than it does with things like bringing in a couple of big deal additions in Hull and particularly Belfour.

I'm probably just getting caught up in what the major story lines were at the time of Dallas's cup win.  Belfour was definitely a big part of that, and my examples are a little simplistic because no one player wins a cup.  You need other pieces on the team.  I just remember when they won the cup reporters talking about how much Modano had elevated, and that he was the reason they were there.  When they went back to the cup final and lost to the Devils, it was all on the back of Ed Belfour, at least according to the reporting at the time.

2) The '90 Oilers really strike me as more of an example about how flukey things can happen more than anything else. It was a really weird year. 3 of the final 4 teams had 90 points or less(including Washington with 78 points). I also kind of wonder if Messier's big year is really a question of him having the best year of his life vs. just a difference in opportunities from being the #1 guy instead of the the #2. I'm not sure, in context, his year that year is really a big step up from the rest of his time in Edmonton.

So for this one, I actually meant the Oilers one, and the Rangers one.  I know that the Oilers one is the more flukey of the two, but the Rangers one, I really feel that they win that cup on the backs of Messier, Leetch and Richter.  I guess a young Zubov, who had his best season that year, was also there.  Still I don't think that was the deepest team.  Again I was maybe a little too simplistic in this example, as it was more than Messier.   

3) I guess Gilmour fits the best into that but I can't help but feel like we remember that season a little rosier than is maybe warranted. Gilmour certainly was great that year but I'm not sure anyone would really think he was nudging up against Lemieux and Gretzky. He finished 2nd in Hart voting, sure, but a lot of that was narrative driven. He wasn't a 1st or 2nd team all-star.

Yeah, and I didn't really quantify it well when I was marking the argument, but I was thinking more of the example as "is in the conversation of being one of the best players at their position".  That should have been a caveat though that during the late 80's and early 90's that meant that you were in the conversation with the group of players immediately after Gretzky and Lemieux. 

To use your example, if Marner/Matthews/Nylander were so superhumanly great this year that the Leafs won the cup then I don't think there's any real question that the defense would still be considered one of the worst defenses to have won a cup and Andersen one of the more mediocre goalies to do so.

True, if the Leafs won the Cup, you would probably have to lump them in with Carolina, Pittsburgh, Tampa defence/goalie groupings that won the cup in years past.  You know the more we discuss this, the more I am sure that we are just watching a reboot of the 1999 - 2004 Toronto Maple Leafs. 

 

[Kin]

True, if the Leafs won the Cup, you would probably have to lump them in with Carolina, Pittsburgh, Tampa defence/goalie groupings that won the cup in years past.  You know the more we discuss this, the more I am sure that we are just watching a reboot of the 1999 - 2004 Toronto Maple Leafs.

Which, you know, isn't the worst thing in the world. The modern NHL doesn't have the super teams it used to. There are no Avs or Red Wings that are multiple HOFers deep at the key positions any more. If the 2003 Leafs were dropped into the modern NHL they'd have a puncher's chance.

 

[rdowdall]

True, if the Leafs won the Cup, you would probably have to lump them in with Carolina, Pittsburgh, Tampa defence/goalie groupings that won the cup in years past.  You know the more we discuss this, the more I am sure that we are just watching a reboot of the 1999 - 2004 Toronto Maple Leafs.

Which, you know, isn't the worst thing in the world. The modern NHL doesn't have the super teams it used to. There are no Avs or Red Wings that are multiple HOFers deep at the key positions any more. If the 2003 Leafs were dropped into the modern NHL they'd have a puncher's chance.

When this rebuild started though, I was hoping for more than a punchers chance.  I wanted the Leafs to be built in to a team that was considered a favorite year after year for an extended period of time.  I think I said it at the time of the Andersen trade, or sometime around there, but when we look back on this 10 or 15 years from now, if the Leafs haven't won a cup, I think we can point to that trade as to where things went off the rails.

 

[mr grieves]

When this rebuild started though, I was hoping for more than a punchers chance.  I wanted the Leafs to be built in to a team that was considered a favorite year after year for an extended period of time.  I think I said it at the time of the Andersen trade, or sometime around there, but when we look back on this 10 or 15 years from now, if the Leafs haven't won a cup, I think we can point to that trade as to where things went off the rails.

I sort of came to worry about this as well, but I can't say the Leafs really paid the price I thought they would. Get a proven goalie to keep you out of the basement, and you'll miss out on the high pick needed to get a defenseman with a really high ceiling... and then they landed Liljegren, who had been ranked in the top 5 and seems to have all the skill level to be what we need. So, I don't know.

Maybe without Andersen they wouldn't've held on to the UFAs, and so had another 2 or 3 picks in the 20-60 range. But those guys wouldn't be ready for a years, and no one assessing whether they were year-in, year-out favorites would be looking at them. That judgment would be made on the core assembled with those high picks: Matthews, Marner, Rielly, Nylander, Kadri, Liljegren.

 

[Kin]

When this rebuild started though, I was hoping for more than a punchers chance.  I wanted the Leafs to be built in to a team that was considered a favorite year after year for an extended period of time.  I think I said it at the time of the Andersen trade, or sometime around there, but when we look back on this 10 or 15 years from now, if the Leafs haven't won a cup, I think we can point to that trade as to where things went off the rails.

You only thought that because you've been influenced by the greatest thinkers of our time:

http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=4450.0

 

[rdowdall]

When this rebuild started though, I was hoping for more than a punchers chance.  I wanted the Leafs to be built in to a team that was considered a favorite year after year for an extended period of time.  I think I said it at the time of the Andersen trade, or sometime around there, but when we look back on this 10 or 15 years from now, if the Leafs haven't won a cup, I think we can point to that trade as to where things went off the rails.

You only thought that because you've been influenced by the greatest thinkers of our time:

http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=4450.0

And all this time I was trying not to be a sheeple.

 

[rdowdall]

When this rebuild started though, I was hoping for more than a punchers chance.  I wanted the Leafs to be built in to a team that was considered a favorite year after year for an extended period of time.  I think I said it at the time of the Andersen trade, or sometime around there, but when we look back on this 10 or 15 years from now, if the Leafs haven't won a cup, I think we can point to that trade as to where things went off the rails.

I sort of came to worry about this as well, but I can't say the Leafs really paid the price I thought they would. Get a proven goalie to keep you out of the basement, and you'll miss out on the high pick needed to get a defenseman with a really high ceiling... and then they landed Liljegren, who had been ranked in the top 5 and seems to have all the skill level to be what we need. So, I don't know.

Maybe without Andersen they wouldn't've held on to the UFAs, and so had another 2 or 3 picks in the 20-60 range. But those guys wouldn't be ready for a years, and no one assessing whether they were year-in, year-out favorites would be looking at them. That judgment would be made on the core assembled with those high picks: Matthews, Marner, Rielly, Nylander, Kadri, Liljegren.

I think the issue is that when you have multiple top five picks, chances are you can get a surefire, top end player at a position.  You remove the whole "seems to be" from the equation.  The minute you start saying "if" is where the problems start.  That when you have to hope that things pan out, and if they don't pan out, that's when you are in trouble.  You want to give yourself the highest chance that you can get the things that you need to be competitive. 

It's like the Phil Kessel years, where people would say that the way the Leafs were going to address their first line center problems were by drafting Pavel Datsyuk in the 6th round.  That just doesn't happen with a high frequency, so you can't really count on it.  Did the Leafs draft a bonafide first line center in those years in the later rounds?  No.  Do you know where the Leafs got a legitimate first line center from?  The 1st overall pick.

So yeah, it's possible to draft an impact, bonafide #1 dman outside the first 5 picks.  In fact it seems to be easier than getting a center.  Still though, you would have a better chance if the pick was in that first 5.  So why rush the process when you have already committed to the rebuild?   

 

[skrackle]

When the Leafs hired Lou Lamoriello, they started diverting from Shanahan's talk of patience, rebuilding properly etc. Yes, Lamoriello did get rid of Dion Phaneuf and thank you Lou for that. But that's when the "we found ourselves further ahead than we thought we'd be" talk started.

Are the Leafs further ahead than pre-Lamoriello? Well, you'd have to say yes, considering they went from last overall to a franchise record regular season points total in a couple of seasons. In too many ways though, they jumped the gun on finishing the rebuild. They will no longer get high draft picks by being a bad team. UFAs? Tavares would be nice, but I wouldn't be betting on him signing with the Leafs. They haven't built enough depth to make a big trade without weakening the team in another area.

I can't see Frederic Andersen as the long term answer in goal. He's inconsistent; wildly so at times, but he's often hung out to dry by poor defensive play. The defense-roster and team play- needs so much work. Beyond that, the Leafs just don't seem like a team that's built for the playoffs.

They do seem like a team that was fortunate to draft a few highly skilled offensive players. You need a few of those to win, so that's good. I do still have optimism that this team can do something, but Dubas has his work cut out.

 

[mr grieves]

So yeah, it's possible to draft an impact, bonafide #1 dman outside the first 5 picks.  In fact it seems to be easier than getting a center.  Still though, you would have a better chance if the pick was in that first 5.  So why rush the process when you have already committed to the rebuild? 

I'm just not convinced rushing things really cost them that player who has greater odds of panning out to fill a need. Would the Leafs be much closer if they'd tanked in 2017 and got Cale Makar or Miro Heiskanen instead of Liljegren?

 

[mr grieves]

Are the Leafs further ahead than pre-Lamoriello? Well, you'd have to say yes, considering they went from last overall to a franchise record regular season points total in a couple of seasons. In too many ways though, they jumped the gun on finishing the rebuild. They will no longer get high draft picks by being a bad team. UFAs? Tavares would be nice, but I wouldn't be betting on him signing with the Leafs. They haven't built enough depth to make a big trade without weakening the team in another area.

Andersen contributed to their emerging from the basement sooner than you'd like, but so did the decade or so getting pretty high picks. I've said this elsewhere, but there really aren't many teams that drafted as high and for as long as the Leafs did -- and with relatively few busts (none if you consider we turned a bust into a 30-goal winger). It's possible that all those high picks just meant that they weren't bad enough to pick top 5 again after they got Matthews. Of course, that might doom us to be being the Caps (until last week) or San Jose.

 

[cabber24]

What's a realistic package for Karlsson? Nylander, a first and second round pick? I would flip a lot of assets for a Doughty or a Karlsson.

I would prefer signing them as UFA but these guys will likely be resigned or traded before it comes to that.

 

[Kin]

So yeah, it's possible to draft an impact, bonafide #1 dman outside the first 5 picks.  In fact it seems to be easier than getting a center.  Still though, you would have a better chance if the pick was in that first 5.  So why rush the process when you have already committed to the rebuild? 

And even then, I think it's important to recognize what building up assets can mean for a club. So instead on focusing if the team would be any closer if they had a handful of extra 1sts and 2nds or the difference between Liljegren and Heiskanen, the difference is between being asset-rich and being asset-poor as they sort of are now.

I've made the point before but if a genuine bonafide #1 defenseman decided he wanted to be traded tomorrow, I don't think the Leafs have the asset to be in on that chase if they had to be the highest bidder(presuming they didn't want to subtract from their current roster). If they had a bunch of surplus high ceiling 1sts and 2nds to go along with a recent #3 pick though...?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

So yeah, it's possible to draft an impact, bonafide #1 dman outside the first 5 picks.  In fact it seems to be easier than getting a center.  Still though, you would have a better chance if the pick was in that first 5.  So why rush the process when you have already committed to the rebuild? 

And even then, I think it's important to recognize what building up assets can mean for a club. So instead on focusing if the team would be any closer if they had a handful of extra 1sts and 2nds or the difference between Liljegren and Heiskanen, the difference is between being asset-rich and being asset-poor as they sort of are now.

I've made the point before but if a genuine bonafide #1 defenseman decided he wanted to be traded tomorrow, I don't think the Leafs have the asset to be in on that chase if they had to be the highest bidder(presuming they didn't want to subtract from their current roster). If they had a bunch of surplus high ceiling 1sts and 2nds to go along with a recent #3 pick though...?

I don't think any team out there gets a bonafide #1 defensemen without subtracting something of high value from their current roster.

 

[Kin]

I don't think any team out there gets a bonafide #1 defensemen without subtracting something of high value from their current roster.

Without wanting to get too caught up in what constitutes a genuine #1 defenseman or "high value" and understanding that there haven't been too many trades that we can look at as comparables I will say that I think some pretty high value defensemen have been moved for what amounts to mainly future assetss.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't think any team out there gets a bonafide #1 defensemen without subtracting something of high value from their current roster.

Without wanting to get too caught up in what constitutes a genuine #1 defenseman or "high value" and understanding that there haven't been too many trades that we can look at as comparables I will say that I think some pretty high value defensemen have been moved for what amounts to mainly future assetss.

I just don't think #1's get moved too often. I mean a number one on any team could be moved if they're say, Dion Phaneuf, but in reality he's not a #1.

I just don't know that prospects or draft picks get it done. I've been wrong before. Ask my wife.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I don't think any team out there gets a bonafide #1 defensemen without subtracting something of high value from their current roster.

Without wanting to get too caught up in what constitutes a genuine #1 defenseman or "high value" and understanding that there haven't been too many trades that we can look at as comparables I will say that I think some pretty high value defensemen have been moved for what amounts to mainly future assetss.

Most of the trades you are referencing might be trade deadline deals for guys with little term left though.  Not often do really high-end defensemen get traded for futures in the off-season.  The Dougie Hamilton trade is probably the only recent example you could pull out.

 

[Kin]

Most of the trades you are referencing might be trade deadline deals for guys with little term left though.  Not often do really high-end defensemen get traded for futures in the off-season.  The Dougie Hamilton trade is probably the only recent example you could pull out.

High-end defensemen don't get traded much full-stop. So I'm not saying it's necessarily an inevitable but even if we downgrade the requirements I think the point still stands. If a high value defenseman becomes available and a team is looking for futures, it's better to be asset-rich.