Compete level!

[Champ Kind]

I really only have three things come to mind as I read through this thread:

- First, I understand and feel the same frustration as most posters
- Second, I checked the standings and the Leafs have played 8 games this year
- Third, I really wish people would stop using 'compete' as a noun

 

[Kin]

I really only have three things come to mind as I read through this thread:

- First, I understand and feel the same frustration as most posters
- Second, I checked the standings and the Leafs have played 8 games this year
- Third, I really wish people would stop using 'compete' as a noun

I think this is less reactionary then you're implying. I don't know how many criticisms in this thread weren't being said in the same way by the same people at the end of last year too.

 

[Highlander]

I think Herman made a good post. Longley in the Sun was just about saying the same things. We are 8 games into a season with a lot of new players. Its easy to get hypercrytical especially after the Boston game. Personally I am going to take a valium for the rest of this season and hopefully they will get a few winning streaks going. The real changes will come next year when Babcock shows up.
If we make the playoffs great, would be nice but my expectation level is not that high now.
And Patrick you will be glad to know that my son called me stupid for my last post.

 

[Champ Kind]

I really only have three things come to mind as I read through this thread:

- First, I understand and feel the same frustration as most posters
- Second, I checked the standings and the Leafs have played 8 games this year
- Third, I really wish people would stop using 'compete' as a noun

I think this is less reactionary then you're implying. I don't know how many criticisms in this thread weren't being said in the same way by the same people at the end of last year too.

Maybe - or better yet probably - but I also don't think it's entirely fair to look at the 2013-14 and 2014-2015 seasons as a continuum, either.  Sure, we can look at Phaneuf's lack defensive of awareness as part of a larger issue with his character, personality, or ____, but there's also merit in simply saying "Hey, it's early" and develop more formal opinions later in November.

 

[Kin]

Maybe - or better yet probably - but I also don't think it's entirely fair to look at the 2013-14 and 2014-2015 seasons as a continuum, either.  Sure, we can look at Phaneuf's lack defensive of awareness as part of a larger issue with his character, personality, or ____, but there's also merit in simply saying "Hey, it's early" and develop more formal opinions later in November.

I don't think you need to look at two different seasons as a continuum to come to the conclusion that Leo Komarov, Stephane Robidas and Daniel Winnik are fairly unlikely to fundamentally alter the central issues the team has been facing for multiple years now.

If there had been serious and significant change over the off-season there'd be a lot more merit in giving a new approach/strategy time to shake out but I don't need to watch half or a quarter of a movie to know if I've seen it before.

 

[rdowdall]

I understand what you are saying.  I would like to point out that this approach has not worked for Edmonton.

What I think you want to say is "I seriously hope this management group starts to make the right decisions going forward and therefore builds a team that can compete for a cup."

I'm a broken record on this point but "it hasn't worked in Edmonton" is not a counter-point to the idea that the team needs to load up on high draft picks. There is no way to build a winning team that is fool-proof and what has sunk the Oilers isn't the tactics, it's the fools. Until you can present a method of building a team that is guaranteed to succeed, the one with the most successes behind it is not undercut by an outlier like Edmonton.

Nobody is arguing that simply being bad leads to being good. But being bad gives you the best opportunity to become good. A team still needs to make smart decisions and one of those decisions is that it's better to be at the bottom of the league than the middle.

Sure, I was just trying to make the point that jettisoning players for picks is not going to be enough to turn this team around.  The team needs to be built properly.  The right decisions have to be made.  My argument wasn't that "drafting high picks hasn't worked in Edmonton".  My point was that "Drafting high picks and then not properly building the team around them" is going to yield the same result that the Leafs have now, which is a team that has some talent, but can't win on a regular basis. 

For whatever reason, the management teams that have been in place since Pat Quinn cannot build a winner.  Now part of that is probably because Quinn had Sundin, and the other part is probably the very literal free agency that existed as well as the absence of a cap.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Could I beat a dead horse/re-open an old debate/dissect a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam?  In the last 5 years I really haven't expressed my opinion on this particular topic of the building of the Leafs or some of the moves, I typically just post outrageous trades that I would like to see in the present that would fit under the cap.

I guess I look not just at struggling teams like Edmonton but at successful teams as well and see how the Leafs core compares. Leafs have Kessel and Phaneuf as core players while Chicago has Kane and Seabrook. You could also compare VanReimsdyk, Lupul, Bozak, Kadri, Clarkson and Bernier to Chicago's Sharp, Hossa, Shaw, Saad, Bickel and Crawford but the Leafs still don't have a 'Toews' and 'Keith' who are arguably Chicago's 2 best players.

As I look at how the Leafs and Chicago core was built:
Chicago Drafted 8!  - Seabrook 1st Rd '03, Toews 1st Rd '06, Kane 1st Rd '07, Keith 2nd Rd '02, Crawford 2nd Rd '03, Bickel 2nd Rd '04, Saad 2nd Rd '11, Shaw 5th Rd '11.
Traded for Sharp and Hossa was a UFA.

Leafs:
Drafted: 1!  Kadri.

So in building a team I see 3 obvious areas: UFA's, trades and the draft.

UFAs haven't bothered me a whole lot because they have cost the Leafs no assets and only cap space. So even though we presently have Clarkson signed for arguably 2 million more than what he should be making as a 3rd line RW, I haven't heard/read of any deals the Leafs missed, whether in a trade or re-signing a FA, that they needed the cap space..... unlike Chicago who lost Ladd, Byfuglien, Versteeg, etc because of cap issues over the years.  If some collapse in NHL revenues causes the cap to not increase making if difficult to sign some of the key Leaf RFAs I feel even Clarkson could most likely be traded if the Leafs GM kept 40% of the salary which would be $2 MIL until 2019/20 compared to a buyout which would cost the Leafs cap over $4.7 MIL during the same time period.  Salary rentention would hurt but wouldn't be completely devastating. 

Draft: Not all draft picks make the NHL roster.  After looking at the NHL rosters it appears getting 1 or 2 players a draft year that become NHL caliber seems to be extremely successful.

Trades:The main problem I have seen is the willingness to trade draft picks for players.  I feel that there has been a few trades that didn't matter, a few that were great and 2 that were crippling.  Cliff Fletcher Era II had some weird and bad trades but none were crippling. Although the Kessel trade looked bad September 18th 2009 before we even knew what young players would be available at those 3 draft picks, I feel trading Rask instead of Pogge for Raycroft was the most crippling.  What bothers me the most about the Raycroft/Rask deal isn't that a chance/risk was taken but that it was reported that JFJ did the trade without consulting his staff.  If JFJ had simply used the management team at his disposal back then rather than going it alone, I don't feel that trade would have happened which I believe is the worst trade of the Leafs modern era and influenced many other ill-chosen moves to try to correct it.

Anyway, when I went to post this I see that 14 replies have come in as I have typed slowly.  Hopefully what I posted is relevant to the conversation in some way.

 

[Kin]

Sure, I was just trying to make the point that jettisoning players for picks is not going to be enough to turn this team around.  The team needs to be built properly.  The right decisions have to be made.  My argument wasn't that "drafting high picks hasn't worked in Edmonton".  My point was that "Drafting high picks and then not properly building the team around them" is going to yield the same result that the Leafs have now, which is a team that has some talent, but can't win on a regular basis. 

Like I said though, I think that's more or less a strawman unless you know of anyone actually saying "They need to accumulate high draft picks and then a cup winning team will just materialize out of nothing". I think it's pretty safe to assume that when people talk about committing to a full-scale rebuild that importance still being placed on actually running a professional hockey team is a given.

 

[rdowdall]

Sure, I was just trying to make the point that jettisoning players for picks is not going to be enough to turn this team around.  The team needs to be built properly.  The right decisions have to be made.  My argument wasn't that "drafting high picks hasn't worked in Edmonton".  My point was that "Drafting high picks and then not properly building the team around them" is going to yield the same result that the Leafs have now, which is a team that has some talent, but can't win on a regular basis. 

Like I said though, I think that's more or less a strawman unless you know of anyone actually saying "They need to accumulate high draft picks and then a cup winning team will just materialize out of nothing". I think it's pretty safe to assume that when people talk about committing to a full-scale rebuild that importance still being placed on actually running a professional hockey team is a given.

I was responding to this:

I seriously hope this management group guts this team, gets as many high picks as they possibly can, and grab as much talent as they possibly can in this draft.  As it is, it's going nowhere.

I took it to mean that if they did what they did in the first sentence then it would yield results better than what they have.  All I am saying is that it will take more than drafting high picks to produce something better than what they have.  They need to build the team correctly.  How is that done?  Well I am not sure.  They obviously haven't built the team correctly to date, so you can take the decisions they have made as those that are probably wrong.  Also, because they have not built the team properly to date, how much confidence does that give that they can make the right decisions going forward?

 

[Kin]

I took it to mean that if they did what they did in the first sentence then it would yield results better than what they have.

Right, and my response to you is that the overwhelming likelihood is that it would. Even the Oilers, despite the obstacles they face that the Leafs, emphatically, do not face, have put together a very talented young core through this strategy.

Again, I think it's safe to assume that the poster you're replying to knows that coaching/good signings/development still would matter and that nobody is actually arguing the opposite.

 

[rdowdall]

I took it to mean that if they did what they did in the first sentence then it would yield results better than what they have.

Right, and my response to you is that the overwhelming likelihood is that it would. Even the Oilers, despite the obstacles they face that the Leafs, emphatically, do not face, have put together a very talented young core through this strategy.

Again, I think it's safe to assume that the poster you're replying to knows that coaching/good signings/development still would matter and that nobody is actually arguing the opposite.

Well the Oilers still aren't winning, and their "compete" level has been called in to question, and there are a lot of questions about Eberle and Hall concerning their character and whether or not they can win at the big level.  They want Dallas Eakins fired, and they are calling him the "decorator" because his big offseason shift in philosophy involved painting the dressing room.  All of that sounds very similar to what the Leafs have now here, minus the painted dressing room, and not an overwhelming likelihood of something that is going to be better.

The Leafs face obstacles too.  Players don't want to play here.  They couldn't get a guy like Nash, or Kesler because they would come here.  Scratch Spezza off that list as well.  The reasons are different, as they aren't related to cash or the lack of a nightlife, but there are still reasons why players don't want to come to Toronto. 

I meant no offence to AvroArrow.  I did not take the time to read all of his posts to understand his mental make up.  I took his statement to be one of "Well just get a bunch of first round picks and the team will be better."  I think you would have a team that has a greater potential to be better, whereas the team the Leafs have now is pretty much what you see is what you are going to get.  However, given the Leafs track record of drafting and developing, I don't think that stockpiling picks is going to produce a winner in five years time.  I think it will just shift the conversation points, and give fans one less option to try. 

 

[Kin]

Well the Oilers still aren't winning, and their "compete" level has been called in to question, and there are a lot of questions about Eberle and Hall concerning their character and whether or not they can win at the big level.  They want Dallas Eakins fired, and they are calling him the "decorator" because his big offseason shift in philosophy involved painting the dressing room.  All of that sounds very similar to what the Leafs have now here, minus the painted dressing room, and not an overwhelming likelihood of something that is going to be better.

Right, but the Oilers are a worst case scenario. Not the norm and, again, nobody is saying that the team should emulate the Oilers. The Oilers have made a lot of bad decisions. Those bad decisions can outweigh the good ones but they don't make those good decisions bad.

You are holding up the Oilers as the natural result of the strategy, not a possibility. Finishing low also produced the Penguins and Blackhawks. It produced the Kings and Tampa and the Islanders too. The Oilers do not invalidate the reality that most successful teams are built with this strategy no matter how many people are "questioning" whether or not Taylor Hall can win.

The Leafs face obstacles too.  Players don't want to play here.  They couldn't get a guy like Nash, or Kesler because they would come here.  Scratch Spezza off that list as well.  The reasons are different, as they aren't related to cash or the lack of a nightlife, but there are still reasons why players don't want to come to Toronto.

Any team will face difficulty attracting players when they're bad, especially players who are specifically looking to go to contenders. Those aren't obstacles endemic or unique to Toronto in any way. 

Regardless, the fact that the Leafs have a ton of money to spend on development and coaching is the key there. The fact that the Oilers have not been able to supplement guys like Hall and Eberle with quality depth is not because it's too cold there or there aren't nice shops, it's because they're running their organization poorly. There is no reason that has to be true in Toronto.

However, given the Leafs track record of drafting and developing, I don't think that stockpiling picks is going to produce a winner in five years time.

The Leafs aren't under a voodoo curse. They have the resources to hire the right people. Their "record" is beside the point unless it involves people actively involved with the team now and any and all of those people can be replaced.

Again, nobody is arguing that the Leafs can turn things around without also hiring the right people to run the team and make the decisions. It does not change that stockpiling draft picks has proven to be the most effective way to accumulate the kind of elite NHL talent that winning teams are built on and the Oilers, despite their record, are actually evidence in favour of that as opposed to against it.

 

[herman]

From what I can see, most of us are on the same page, if not the same chapter of the Rebuild Book; what's promising this year is that ownership and management are also on that chapter. It's no longer about bombastic knee-jerk reactions and frittering away the Rasks and Steens of our prospect pool on short-term gains that are ultimately miscast into roles set for failure. Our draft and FA signings this year are a far cry from the previous years' PR splashes. If we try to turn this ship around quickly with a big time signing or showy upheaval, all we'd end up with is a capsizing.

 

[brothert]

From what I can see, most of us are on the same page, if not the same chapter of the Rebuild Book; what's promising this year is that ownership and management are also on that chapter. It's no longer about bombastic knee-jerk reactions and frittering away the Rasks and Steens of our prospect pool on short-term gains that are ultimately miscast into roles set for failure. Our draft and FA signings this year are a far cry from the previous years' PR splashes. If we try to turn this ship around quickly with a big time signing or showy upheaval, all we'd end up with is a capsizing.

Amen brother!

 

[2badknees]

If we try to turn this ship around quickly with a big time signing or showy upheaval, all we'd end up with is a capsizing.

I don't think there's any big time signings to be had, and I don't think anyone is advocating for one that I've read. Regarding an upheaval - I disagree. One can either look at this team, and decide that we have enough talent and character to compete with the best, with a few tweaks and a coaching change or they can take off the rose coloured glasses and start over.

And the upcoming draft is the absolutely best place to start. There's about 6 players on the starting roster that should be jettisoned for prospects and picks. It would take a strong character to actually overturn this mess, instead of hiring more management.

What Shanahan does this season will define him as a president. Personally, I'm done with the team, not because they're losing, I'm used to that, but because the whole cast is so damn unlikeable. There's not a Sundin to watch and respect, despite the cast of characters around him at times through his career.

Truly, there's nothing here that I admire. They've hitched their wagon to the wrong horses. 

 

[Joe S.]

I really only have three things come to mind as I read through this thread:

- First, I understand and feel the same frustration as most posters
- Second, I checked the standings and the Leafs have played 8 games this year
- Third, I really wish people would stop using 'compete' as a noun

It's not about it being 8 games into the season - it's the fact that 8 games have gone by, and by and large, the exact same problems that plagued this team for the last 2 seasons exist today.

So, I would think most reasonable people would assume, barring any drastic changes, that this team is in for much of the same of what we've already seen.

 

[Highlander]

I would like to welcome Herman to the site, 5 postings and the last 2 have been right on.
I totally agree for the first time in a long time the Leafs have a structure in place that brings us into the new era of hockey.  We have some very very strong hockey people in place and the knee jerk reactions of jettisoning young talent is gone.
And yes it will be painful especially this year, that is why I am going to take a big valium and wait for Babcock to arrive.

 

[Newfoundlandleaf]

Many valid points here... I think in previous years I would have also said " only 8 games in" but effort, trying to win battles, being " flat" in your play is not the result of new players... It's an attitude... A mindset, and a disturbing one at that... Supposing the roster was completely turned over, you still try! We saw them try in the last few minutes of the game... Where was that for the first 50! Extremely frustrating!! Even sporadic trying at the level seen in the last 10 minutes would have shown something!!!!!!

 

[herman]

I would like to welcome Herman to the site, 5 postings and the last 2 have been right on.
I totally agree for the first time in a long time the Leafs have a structure in place that brings us into the new era of hockey.  We have some very very strong hockey people in place and the knee jerk reactions of jettisoning young talent is gone.
And yes it will be painful especially this year, that is why I am going to take a big valium and wait for Babcock to arrive.

Thanks, Highlander! Long time lurker, first few times poster.

I don't think there's any big time signings to be had, and I don't think anyone is advocating for one that I've read. Regarding an upheaval - I disagree. One can either look at this team, and decide that we have enough talent and character to compete with the best, with a few tweaks and a coaching change or they can take off the rose coloured glasses and start over.

And the upcoming draft is the absolutely best place to start. There's about 6 players on the starting roster that should be jettisoned for prospects and picks. It would take a strong character to actually overturn this mess, instead of hiring more management.

What Shanahan does this season will define him as a president. Personally, I'm done with the team, not because they're losing, I'm used to that, but because the whole cast is so damn unlikeable. There's not a Sundin to watch and respect, despite the cast of characters around him at times through his career.

Truly, there's nothing here that I admire. They've hitched their wagon to the wrong horses. 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Sundin was a generational talent and leader, and his abilities and presence in the lineup covered over a lot of the systemic flaws that has plagued the Leafs for decades. We certainly do not have anyone remotely resembling him, or the blue collar leaders of previous eras (Gilmour, Clark, etc.) that can will their teams into success.

I do believe Shanahan has overhauled a lot of the team at the infrastructure level already. A wholesale gutting of the on-ice product, however, is not feasible (you'd need buyers for what you're selling, and what we have to sell is of little current value). I like how he has approached culture change so far: the management and coaching changes wiped out the apparent crony-ism and put value on actual performance (even if currently unproven at this level); the Kyle Dubas and Mark Hunter hires look very promising in that these are executives that have proven they know how to make the best of very little (Dubas) and know how to keep success rolling with a strong foundation of development (Hunter). It is still very early for any of these changes to make immediate impact on the ice, but they will all converge there.

I know I don't have any hard numbers to back any of this up, nor do I have any inside knowledge beyond what's been published, but the signs look promising. The path to get there is still being charted, but I see the team now has a direction to work towards. Once we shed the inertia of the past mistakes in the most beneficial ways possible, the results will start to materialize. This doesn't absolve the players of their lackluster performances but I believe they have higher hills to climb than players on better run teams do because they haven't really had a support structure optimized to help them play to their potentials.

 

[rdowdall]

Right, but the Oilers are a worst case scenario. Not the norm and, again, nobody is saying that the team should emulate the Oilers. The Oilers have made a lot of bad decisions. Those bad decisions can outweigh the good ones but they don't make those good decisions bad.

You are holding up the Oilers as the natural result of the strategy, not a possibility. Finishing low also produced the Penguins and Blackhawks. It produced the Kings and Tampa and the Islanders too. The Oilers do not invalidate the reality that most successful teams are built with this strategy no matter how many people are "questioning" whether or not Taylor Hall can win.

You're right nobody is saying that they should emulate the Oilers.  All I am saying is that drafting high is not going to guarantee a higher level of competitiveness than what the Leafs currently have now.  A higher percentage, sure, but it is not a guarantee.  Do I think they should do it? Yes.  Do I trust the current management team to do it properly? No not really.  Does this lack of trust lead me to believe that the Leafs would end up like in a situation where they are no better than they are now? Yes.  Am I answering questions nobody is asking?  Undoubtedly so.

Any team will face difficulty attracting players when they're bad, especially players who are specifically looking to go to contenders. Those aren't obstacles endemic or unique to Toronto in any way. 

Regardless, the fact that the Leafs have a ton of money to spend on development and coaching is the key there. The fact that the Oilers have not been able to supplement guys like Hall and Eberle with quality depth is not because it's too cold there or there aren't nice shops, it's because they're running their organization poorly. There is no reason that has to be true in Toronto.

Your right, there is no reason for Toronto to be run poorly.  But they consistently are.  And because they consistently are how is it that drafting high picks for a couple of years is going to change the fact that the Leafs are consistently run poorly?

The Leafs aren't under a voodoo curse. They have the resources to hire the right people. Their "record" is beside the point unless it involves people actively involved with the team now and any and all of those people can be replaced.

Again, nobody is arguing that the Leafs can turn things around without also hiring the right people to run the team and make the decisions. It does not change that stockpiling draft picks has proven to be the most effective way to accumulate the kind of elite NHL talent that winning teams are built on and the Oilers, despite their record, are actually evidence in favour of that as opposed to against it.

I guess my comment was more of an add on comment that should have been more to the effect of "I think our current management team needs to be smarter as well as going for higher draft picks."  I am not so sure that they would do the right thing with those draft picks and pick the right player.  I have a feeling they would go off board because they think they are smarter than everyone else.

The Leafs have tried to build through the draft route before.  From 1983 to 1990 they drafted Courtnall at #7 (83),  Iafrate at #4 (84), Wendel at #1 (85), Damphouse at #6 (86), Luke Richardson at #7 (87), Scott Pearson at #6 (88), Scott Thorton at #3 (89), Rob Pearson at #12 (89), Steve Bancroft at #21 (89), and Drake Berehowsky at #10 (90).

So currently even if the Leafs had a bunch of first round picks for next year (because this year should be a no-brainer that even the Leafs couldn't screw up, but I wouldn't put it past them), they would need a management team in place that would do the right thing with those picks. 

My argument isn't that high picks aren't the way to go or doesn't produce results.  My argument is that high picks in absence of competent management will nullify the gains produced by those high picks.