Coach Mike Babcock

[Redleaf]

with Babcock you never know, he has some very talented players on the roster and when a guy like Komorav explodes and the rest of the cast of grinders play within a system you never really know. Also when Bernier faltered, Reimer played like a Vezina goalie, Sparks won a few games and Bernier rounds back to form giving some very good goaltending. Perhaps October was the anomaly and this is what we may come to expect based upon continue performance.
Certianly he has Gardiner and Phaneuf playing their best as Leafs and Rielly is becoming a force as well.
Let see how much of this team is sold off for picks or if the Leafs are in playoff contention in a few weeks do they see how far this bunch can take them?  I can't imagine the Suites not wanting to have some playoff revenue after all these years.

Make no mistake, the Leafs will be selling at the deadline, results be damned.

Komarov has to be a sell high candidate? He's a friggin all-star! I love his work ethic and what I think he does for the locker room but I would be very interested in seeing what he would yield in a trade. I don't think he will ever play as prominent role for any team as he does right now for the Leafs including the Leafs.

Funny, of all the eligible candidates to be dealt at the deadline, I think Komarov is the least likely to go. Besides his age, he's got everything a team could want AND the coach loves him. I think he'll be a Leaf for a long while still.

 

[Highlander]

I agree Redleaf, he is exactly the kind of player that Babs will want around to lead by example, his work ethic, sense of humour and downright doggedness, his ability to draw penalties without responding. Also when we draft more of these Fins he may be really uselful. 

 

[Kin]

Yeah. I think that if the Leafs really want to maximize their returns at the deadline, they should really only trade players having bad seasons who aren't very good, who set a bad example for others and who don't get along with their coach. I think history shows us that's who teams really want to bring aboard.

 

[Highlander]

Nik as always your sarcasim is welcome but for the life of me I don't remember why.
It is looking like whatever Pixie dust Bab's is sprinkling on these guys, is that they are all starting to look pretty good. Even guys like Boyes, Matthius, Parenteau, JVR and Bozak are all playing pretty good. With Bernier and Reimers recent play we could trade either one for a good pick.  Outside of Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly no one is really untouchable. So we can keep Komrade on that basis. Of course if we can get a top 5 pick for him then I may be willing to accept him going as I really want one of those Finns or A. Powers Matthews 

 

[2badknees]

I see logic for a proper rebuild has gone out the window for some folks.

 

[Bates]

There is no exact way to do a proper rebuild.  For every team that drafted high a few years there is a team that failed doing it and there are some teams that build through just drafting well, developing well, and trading well.

I see logic for a proper rebuild has gone out the window for some folks.

 

[bustaheims]

I see logic for a proper rebuild has gone out the window for some folks.

Mostly people who never completely bought the idea that the Leafs were going to go that route in the first place. Regardless of how people may feel about certain players, the only question that really needs to be asked before contemplating any trade right now is "does the return have potential to help the team more in 5 years than retaining the player does?" In all but a handful of cases, there's a very good chance the answer to that question will be "yes," in which case, you make a deal.

 

[Redleaf]

Yeah. I think that if the Leafs really want to maximize their returns at the deadline, they should really only trade players having bad seasons who aren't very good, who set a bad example for others and who don't get along with their coach. I think history shows us that's who teams really want to bring aboard.

Sure. But who are you arguing with?

 

[Kin]

There is no exact way to do a proper rebuild.  For every team that drafted high a few years there is a team that failed doing it and there are some teams that build through just drafting well, developing well, and trading well.

Regardless of whether that's true(it isn't), what was brought up wasn't tanking for multiple years for high draft picks. It was trading a player who is near 30 years old with 2 years remaining on their deal and producing at an unsustainably high rate during a year when the Leafs, regardless of the process of rebuilding they choose, are at the beginning of said process. There is no credible concept of rebuilding that ignores the reality there.

 

[Kin]

Mostly people who never completely bought the idea that the Leafs were going to go that route in the first place.

See, I don't agree with that. I think it's people whose patience for a proper rebuild was exhausted by two bad months and who are using somewhat stronger than expected play over the course of half a season as "proof" that the Leafs don't need to do it anyway.

 

[Redleaf]

Mostly people who never completely bought the idea that the Leafs were going to go that route in the first place.

See, I don't agree with that. I think it's people whose patience for a proper rebuild was exhausted by two bad months and who are using somewhat stronger than expected play over the course of half a season as "proof" that the Leafs don't need to do it anyway.

Well I don't know too many people who actually believe this,  but Ibe seen enough to know that management isn't going to blow this out of proportion and change their philosophy half way through season one, or two, or wherever we are in the current rebuild??  In an interview I saw the other day, Babcock was quick to snuff out any discussion or aspiration the team has of making  the playoffs this year. He blamed any sort of playoff talk on the media, which is entirely the case once again. It will be interesting to see the media reaction if they are in a playoff position at the deadline and trade away a bunch of productive veterans for draft picks. Which is, of course what needs to happen!

 

[Bates]

Let's hear the exact recipe for a perfect rebuild then? And the teams that have used it for success?  Must be a few as there are a few that have been drafting high fairly regularly.

There is no exact way to do a proper rebuild.  For every team that drafted high a few years there is a team that failed doing it and there are some teams that build through just drafting well, developing well, and trading well.

Regardless of whether that's true(it isn't), what was brought up wasn't tanking for multiple years for high draft picks. It was trading a player who is near 30 years old with 2 years remaining on their deal and producing at an unsustainably high rate during a year when the Leafs, regardless of the process of rebuilding they choose, are at the beginning of said process. There is no credible concept of rebuilding that ignores the reality there.

 

[Kin]

Let's hear the exact recipe for a perfect rebuild then? And the teams that have used it for success?  Must be a few as there are a few that have been drafting high fairly regularly.

The problem is you're misidentifying your variables. If Thomas Keller and I both decide to cook something using the exact same recipe and his turns out great and mine turns out terrible, the proper response isn't "Well, the recipe must only be right some of the time".

 

[Bates]

No the problem is that the 3x act same ingredients are not available as there is only one of each.  It's easier to rebuild when your 1st overall pick is Crosby, the plan gets a lot tougher when your 1st overall year produces Yakapov. Same with free agents when you are Winnipeg vs LA.

Let's hear the exact recipe for a perfect rebuild then? And the teams that have used it for success?  Must be a few as there are a few that have been drafting high fairly regularly.

The problem is you're mixing up your variables. If Thomas Keller and I both decide to cook something using the exact same recipe and his turns out great and mine turns out terrible, the proper response isn't "Well, the recipe must only be right some of the time".

 

[bustaheims]

No the problem is that the 3x act same ingredients are not available as there is only one of each.  It's easier to rebuild when your 1st overall pick is Crosby, the plan gets a lot tougher when your 1st overall year produces Yakapov. Same with free agents when you are Winnipeg vs LA.

Those are still only pieces of the rebuild - and, not as big pieces as you make them out to be. A rebuild isn't easier just with Crosby. They needed to have Malkin, Fleury, Orpik, Letang, etc, already in the organization, and then they also had to draft guys like Staal, and role players like Talbot etc., who played large roles in their successful seasons. That doesn't happen in one draft, and it doesn't happen if you don't maximize your ability to be successful by having as many picks as possible. Just because there isn't a generational talent in a draft, doesn't mean there aren't important pieces to be found - you just have to choose the right ones.

As for free agents, as long as you're not in an awful location, they're largely going to go to where the money is, as long as the team isn't terrible. Toronto isn't an awful location for hockey, and, if they get the first stages of the rebuild right - drafting properly, maximizing asset value on guys that aren't going to be part of the long-term future, etc. - they won't be terrible, either. On top of that, the free agent market isn't as vital a piece of building a team as it once was. It's where you go for support pieces and depth guys, not core players.

 

[Bates]

I agree and if you read back a few posts my argument is that there is no exact was to rebuild, it's different based on a number of variables for each team.

No the problem is that the 3x act same ingredients are not available as there is only one of each.  It's easier to rebuild when your 1st overall pick is Crosby, the plan gets a lot tougher when your 1st overall year produces Yakapov. Same with free agents when you are Winnipeg vs LA.

Those are still only pieces of the rebuild - and, not as big pieces as you make them out to be. A rebuild isn't easier just with Crosby. They needed to have Malkin, Fleury, Orpik, Letang, etc, already in the organization, and then they also had to draft guys like Staal, and role players like Talbot etc., who played large roles in their successful seasons. That doesn't happen in one draft, and it doesn't happen if you don't maximize your ability to be successful by having as many picks as possible. Just because there isn't a generational talent in a draft, doesn't mean there aren't important pieces to be found - you just have to choose the right ones.

As for free agents, as long as you're not in an awful location, they're largely going to go to where the money is, as long as the team isn't terrible. Toronto isn't an awful location for hockey, and, if they get the first stages of the rebuild right - drafting properly, maximizing asset value on guys that aren't going to be part of the long-term future, etc. - they won't be terrible, either. On top of that, the free agent market isn't as vital a piece of building a team as it once was. It's where you go for support pieces and depth guys, not core players.

 

[Kin]

No the problem is that the 3x act same ingredients are not available as there is only one of each.  It's easier to rebuild when your 1st overall pick is Crosby, the plan gets a lot tougher when your 1st overall year produces Yakapov. Same with free agents when you are Winnipeg vs LA.

Which would be a problem if I were sitting around worrying how to rebuild the Winnipeg Jets. I'm not. Toronto is a huge, cosmopolitan city with piles of money to play around with and scads of hockey tradition. It's never been a market plagued by an inability lure free agents so the particular challenges facing Winnipeg, Columbus or Edmonton aren't particularly relevant to the discussion.

The thing is that the "recipe" we're talking about is a complex one and one of the mistakes you're making is only focusing on one of the steps. The recipe is:
[list type=decimal]
1. Have smart people running the team
2. Maximize you chances at drafting franchise talent by drafting as high and as often as possible, for multiple years if need be until you land said talent.
3. Hire good scouts so that you can crucially add talent outside of the first round, as well as avoiding bad decisions with your higher picks.
4. Hire good coaches to develop your young players.
5. Hire good front office staff so you can supplement your draft picks with NHL additions at the right time.
6. Have patience
7. Garnish with parsley and serve
[/list]

The argument you're making, essentially, is that because there are teams who ignored or failed at steps 1, 3, 4 and 5(making 6 pointless) and only did step 2 and ultimately didn't build good teams, that the entire recipe isn't invalid. But I pose the reverse question to you. Which teams exist currently in the NHL whose success you really want the Leafs' to mirror that didn't follow these steps?

That's what's so misleading about your Crosby/Yakupov examples. Pittsburgh and Edmonton's rebuilding processes weren't solely about those picks. Pittsburgh, because they did things correctly, almost certainly would have rebuilt themselves into a pretty good team without Crosby, based on "only" having Malkin, Staal, Letang, Fleury and so on. Conversely, the only reason the Oilers drafted Yakupov was because they failed so miserably at adding to the multiple #1 picks they already had on the roster(to say nothing of the fact that a smarter team may have traded down to draft a defenseman with Hall, Eberle and RNH already on the roster or the fact that drafting RNH and Hall may have been not very good decisions themselves.)

A recipe not being idiot-proof doesn't mean the recipe's not right. Especially when there just isn't a second option outside of, essentially, crossing your fingers. Every other even marginal NHL success is based on things a team simply can't plan for like a draft year like 2003 coming around or a franchise 20 year old becoming available because he parties too much or happening to employ the best UFA of all time's brother. 

 

[Highlander]

Nik, outside of the parsley its the recipe the Leafs seem to be using. Good recipe, I think we do have a core to build around, Rielly, Gardiner, Kadir,  I wouldn't mind seeing one good role players stick around who is an example of hard/grinding work like Komorav as an example, but again if someone wants to sell the farm for him then I am all ears.

 

[Bates]

So you agree there is no exact way for a successful rebuild?

No the problem is that the 3x act same ingredients are not available as there is only one of each.  It's easier to rebuild when your 1st overall pick is Crosby, the plan gets a lot tougher when your 1st overall year produces Yakapov. Same with free agents when you are Winnipeg vs LA.

Which would be a problem if I were sitting around worrying how to rebuild the Winnipeg Jets. I'm not. Toronto is a huge, cosmopolitan city with piles of money to play around with and scads of hockey tradition. It's never been a market plagued by an inability lure free agents so the particular challenges facing Winnipeg, Columbus or Edmonton aren't particularly relevant to the discussion.

The thing is that the "recipe" we're talking about is a complex one and one of the mistakes you're making is only focusing on one of the steps. The recipe is:
[list type=decimal]
1. Have smart people running the team
2. Maximize you chances at drafting franchise talent by drafting as high and as often as possible, for multiple years if need be until you land said talent.
3. Hire good scouts so that you can crucially add talent outside of the first round, as well as avoiding bad decisions with your higher picks.
4. Hire good coaches to develop your young players.
5. Hire good front office staff so you can supplement your draft picks with NHL additions at the right time.
6. Have patience
7. Garnish with parsley and serve
[/list]

The argument you're making, essentially, is that because there are teams who ignored or failed at steps 1, 3, 4 and 5(making 6 pointless) and only did step 2 and ultimately didn't build good teams, that the entire recipe isn't invalid. But I pose the reverse question to you. Which teams exist currently in the NHL whose success you really want the Leafs' to mirror that didn't follow these steps?

That's what's so misleading about your Crosby/Yakupov examples. Pittsburgh and Edmonton's rebuilding processes weren't solely about those picks. Pittsburgh, because they did things correctly, almost certainly would have rebuilt themselves into a pretty good team without Crosby, based on "only" having Malkin, Staal, Letang, Fleury and so on. Conversely, the only reason the Oilers drafted Yakupov was because they failed so miserably at adding to the multiple #1 picks they already had on the roster(to say nothing of the fact that a smarter team may have traded down to draft a defenseman with Hall, Eberle and RNH already on the roster or the fact that drafting RNH and Hall may have been not very good decisions themselves.)

A recipe not being idiot-proof doesn't mean the recipe's not right. Especially when there just isn't a second option outside of, essentially, crossing your fingers. Every other even marginal NHL success is based on things a team simply can't plan for like a draft year like 2003 coming around or a franchise 20 year old becoming available because he parties too much or happening to employ the best UFA of all time's brother.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

So you agree there is no exact way for a successful rebuild?

No the problem is that the 3x act same ingredients are not available as there is only one of each.  It's easier to rebuild when your 1st overall pick is Crosby, the plan gets a lot tougher when your 1st overall year produces Yakapov. Same with free agents when you are Winnipeg vs LA.

Which would be a problem if I were sitting around worrying how to rebuild the Winnipeg Jets. I'm not. Toronto is a huge, cosmopolitan city with piles of money to play around with and scads of hockey tradition. It's never been a market plagued by an inability lure free agents so the particular challenges facing Winnipeg, Columbus or Edmonton aren't particularly relevant to the discussion.

The thing is that the "recipe" we're talking about is a complex one and one of the mistakes you're making is only focusing on one of the steps. The recipe is:
[list type=decimal]
1. Have smart people running the team
2. Maximize you chances at drafting franchise talent by drafting as high and as often as possible, for multiple years if need be until you land said talent.
3. Hire good scouts so that you can crucially add talent outside of the first round, as well as avoiding bad decisions with your higher picks.
4. Hire good coaches to develop your young players.
5. Hire good front office staff so you can supplement your draft picks with NHL additions at the right time.
6. Have patience
7. Garnish with parsley and serve
[/list]

The argument you're making, essentially, is that because there are teams who ignored or failed at steps 1, 3, 4 and 5(making 6 pointless) and only did step 2 and ultimately didn't build good teams, that the entire recipe isn't invalid. But I pose the reverse question to you. Which teams exist currently in the NHL whose success you really want the Leafs' to mirror that didn't follow these steps?

That's what's so misleading about your Crosby/Yakupov examples. Pittsburgh and Edmonton's rebuilding processes weren't solely about those picks. Pittsburgh, because they did things correctly, almost certainly would have rebuilt themselves into a pretty good team without Crosby, based on "only" having Malkin, Staal, Letang, Fleury and so on. Conversely, the only reason the Oilers drafted Yakupov was because they failed so miserably at adding to the multiple #1 picks they already had on the roster(to say nothing of the fact that a smarter team may have traded down to draft a defenseman with Hall, Eberle and RNH already on the roster or the fact that drafting RNH and Hall may have been not very good decisions themselves.)

A recipe not being idiot-proof doesn't mean the recipe's not right. Especially when there just isn't a second option outside of, essentially, crossing your fingers. Every other even marginal NHL success is based on things a team simply can't plan for like a draft year like 2003 coming around or a franchise 20 year old becoming available because he parties too much or happening to employ the best UFA of all time's brother.

Marginally off-topic, but I do know there's an exact way for a successful quote-and-reply.