Compete level!

[brothert]

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).

Those drafts looked pretty solid until you get to 1988.  Making the big splash of getting glen anderson for 2.5yrs and Grant Fuhr for 1.5yrs, cost us a solid stanley cup winning centreman in damphousse and a respectable career as a stay at home Dman in Richardson.  Iafrate and Courtnall weren't really bums either.  There rest, well yeah there's some issues.

 

[rdowdall]

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).

Those drafts looked pretty solid until you get to 1988.  Making the big splash of getting glen anderson for 2.5yrs and Grant Fuhr for 1.5yrs, cost us a solid stanley cup winning centreman in damphousse and a respectable career as a stay at home Dman in Richardson.  Iafrate and Courtnall weren't really bums either.  There rest, well yeah there's some issues.

But that is how fickle it can be.  You can be on track, but a couple of mistakes and suddenly you are in the weeds again.  The year that you have the low draft pick also matters.  Leafs drafted Wendel 1st overall in 85.  The 1st overall pick in 84 was Mario Lemiuex.

The Blackhawks drafted Kane 1st overall, Teows with the 3rd pick and Barker with the 3rd overall pick.  Other than that they have drafted out of the top 5.  But Kane and Teows are really special players, that are probably better than Hall, Yakupov, and Nugent-Hopkins and Draisaitl.  The Kings really only needed Doughty at #2 to complete their team.  Yes you need those low picks, because you need to take a swing at getting a really special player, but you need to have a smart management team that is going to pull it all together.  The fact that Nonis has been here for 2+ years now and that he hasn't really pulled anything together leads me to believe that he isn't the right person for the job.

 

[2badknees]

To be fair, I think there's a substantial difference between the importance of the draft in the pre and post cap era.

 

[Kin]

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.

Which, again, is not a counterpoint because nobody is saying that anything is guaranteed absent additional positive action.

It's better to put your money in the bank than lighting it on fire. That remains true even if banks can fail and fire can cook your dinner. It's a game of playing odds, not looking for sure things.

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?

Because, again, I'm not involved in this discussion under the impression that the Leafs are under a voodoo curse. When we're talking about what the Leafs should do something that you should just assume is that part of the right course is in having the right people in place making the decisions.

But more to the point, your argument is essentially asking me to look at what I see as evidence that I'm right as evidence that I'm wrong. I think that trying to build without using high draft picks is a path destined to fail. You use the Leafs history as failure as evidence that they're "poorly run" when I see evidence of various people all failing because they're not willing to commit to a proper full-scale rebuild. It doesn't matter who the handyman is if the blueprints are all wrong and one of the reasons the Leafs haven't been successful is because when someone like Scotty Bowman is brought in and says they need to rebuild they don't get brought on board and the team continues it's search for someone who can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

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."

Right and what I'm saying is that everyone thinks that too or, at the very least, that you shouldn't judge guys like Shanahan, or even Nonis or Burke, as failures because they've been unable to do something that doesn't seem possible. They're not bad hockey executives because they can't snap their fingers and have a #1 center materialize out of thin air or because they haven't been able to consistently add all-star talent drafting in the teens and twenties.

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.

Yes but do you understand that nobody is arguing the opposite? That there is no "pro-incompetent management" side? It's like if I'm building a house and I say you need to start with a good foundation and you're coming along to say that, actually, I should start by not building on a ancient indian burial ground or a toxic waste dump. Competent management...that's a given.

 

[Kin]

But that is how fickle it can be.  You can be on track, but a couple of mistakes and suddenly you are in the weeds again.  The year that you have the low draft pick also matters.  Leafs drafted Wendel 1st overall in 85.  The 1st overall pick in 84 was Mario Lemiuex.

Sure, except I think you might be forgetting that three years after this example you're holding up as the worst case scenario for what high draft picks can result in, and make no mistake Ballard running the team is a worst case scenario that will never happen again, the team made it to game 7 of the Conference finals two years in a row in large part due to guys like Clark and guys who they traded Damphousse, Iafrate and Richardson for.

 

[herman]

MLHS's Anthony Petrielli has a new Leafs Notebook up that sheds some light on what I've surmised their management direction to be this year (http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2014/10/28/leafs-notebook-october-28-2/).

Some poignant excerpts that, to me, explains what's going on with the on-ice product:

when the Rays changed owners and a new way of thinking began, they did not try to lose, but they also did not try to win. The reason being: In the big picture, what is the difference between winning 65 games and winning 71? The goal is to win 92+ to get into the playoffs and be a contender. Everything needs to be aimed towards that goal, and everything else is just semantics.

The main, most important difference is that the Leafs are not operating on a shoe-string budget. A salary cap world brings on an entirely different set of challenges and overall playing field. But that does not mean the Leafs do not have advantages [...]
Mark Hunter?s hiring is perhaps the most inspiring acquisition yet. As The Extra 2% notes, ?Many of the Rays? best subtle advantages result from old-fashioned player development and instruction more than data crunching.? Although I?ll note a lot of that instruction is data driven ? in a league where top end players, true franchise changers, are hitting the market less and less ? the real success of the team will lie in drafting and development unless they can manage a series of trades to get themselves into contention (ask Brian Burke how that went). The positive, at least, is that there are some foundational pieces in the organization and the upcoming draft is supposedly one for the ages.

Unfortunately, our on-ice team is predominantly a product of the old guard at the moment and there seems to have been very little by way of adapting methodology to the way the game is now played. There seems to be a tension and power struggle between upper management and the bench boss that's playing out on the ice (deployment decisions).

Both sides are doing their best to ice the best team they can with what they have on hand (I don't think anyone wakes up in the morning thinking, 'gee, how can I screw things up today?'), but differing philosophies/methods here are hampering their efforts. Upper management is still singing the tune of respecting the chain of command, so while they feed pieces they believe will help, it's still down to Carlyle to deploy them accordingly to eke out the potential there, and ultimately on the players themselves to play their best with the system on hand.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

MLHS's Anthony Petrielli has a new Leafs Notebook up that sheds some light on what I've surmised their management direction to be this year (http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2014/10/28/leafs-notebook-october-28-2/).

And Mirtle's article today talks about the mixed messages from the team:

And they are also sending mixed messages galore over what exactly they?re trying to accomplish this season.

In preseason, the talk from management ? from new president Brendan Shanahan on down ? was that they wanted to a) be a four-line team, b) focus on development and c) continue to grow talent from within.

Eight games in, the fourth line has played less than seven minutes a game. Those on it have all been young players, who presumably need developing.

Those watching from the press box ? including 23-year-old Carter Ashton, who has been sitting for most of preseason and all of the regular season to date ? do, too.

If that reads like a continuation of a year ago, that?s because it is. And it?s far from the only thing that remains unchanged.

There has been a lot of attention paid to what has come out of Leafs players? mouths in the days since their 4-1 loss to the Boston Bruins, as if they have the answer to what ails them. The players keep saying they need to work harder or care more or whatever other similar nonsense, in part because they aren?t really allowed to point a finger anywhere else.

What?s actually missing? Two key things.

One is talent, which should almost go without saying at this point and which wasn?t rectified in any significant way in the off-season (with all apologies to Leo Komarov and his solid play).

And two is structure to their game, the kind of structure that allowed the Bruins to look like world-beaters on Saturday even while missing their captain, Zdeno Chara, and even with a rookie named Seth Griffith on the first line and a rookie named Zach Trotman paired with Matt Bartkowski on defence.

It wasn?t just talent that won the day on Saturday.

It was something the Leafs seem to lack too often.

?It looks like we didn?t have a game plan in place when you?ve got people going all over the place,? coach Randy Carlyle said.

Yes, it does. And the logical explanation for that is it?s on brain-dead players or brain-dead coaches or some combination of the two ? not a failure to work hard, which has been the convenient non-explanation explanation for so long for this team.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/mirtle-listless-leafs-appear-to-be-adrift-already/article21340331/

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Two great articles, thanks for sharing.

 

[rdowdall]

But that is how fickle it can be.  You can be on track, but a couple of mistakes and suddenly you are in the weeds again.  The year that you have the low draft pick also matters.  Leafs drafted Wendel 1st overall in 85.  The 1st overall pick in 84 was Mario Lemiuex.

Sure, except I think you might be forgetting that three years after this example you're holding up as the worst case scenario for what high draft picks can result in, and make no mistake Ballard running the team is a worst case scenario that will never happen again, the team made it to game 7 of the Conference finals two years in a row in large part due to guys like Clark and guys who they traded Damphousse, Iafrate and Richardson for.

But they got ansy and traded the 3rd overall pick for Tom Kurvers.  They had a little bit of success in 89-90, which was a .500 hockey team, and then in 90-91, when they got of to a horrific start Floyd Smith traded that pick for Tom Kurvers in attempt to re-invigorate that team.  It's like they followed the course for a little bit but then when they took a small step forward, they couldn't handle the leap back and panicked. 

If they had gotten Neidermayer, history may have been different, but we will never know.

 

[rdowdall]

Which, again, is not a counterpoint because nobody is saying that anything is guaranteed absent additional positive action.

It's better to put your money in the bank than lighting it on fire. That remains true even if banks can fail and fire can cook your dinner. It's a game of playing odds, not looking for sure things.

Sure, but you have to fix what is broken first.  What is broken in Edmonton is not the plan of gathering talent through the draft.  It's all the other stuff that goes on around it.  If you don't fix the other stuff that is going on around it, you will waste the gathering of talent through the draft.  It's an order of operations.  We should do "x".  Well that's great, we all agree that "x" is a great plan.  But "x" needs to be carried out by management "y", and are we sure that management "y" can carry out plan "x" correctly.  Because if management team "y" can't carry out plan "x" properly, then we need a management "y" that can.  And that should be the first order of business.  I understand what you are saying.  Nobody said collect draft picks and hire the worst management team we can find. 

This discussion is probably moot regardless, because I don't think the current regime has any intention of trading guys like Kessel and Phanuef for picks.

Because, again, I'm not involved in this discussion under the impression that the Leafs are under a voodoo curse. When we're talking about what the Leafs should do something that you should just assume is that part of the right course is in having the right people in place making the decisions.

But more to the point, your argument is essentially asking me to look at what I see as evidence that I'm right as evidence that I'm wrong. I think that trying to build without using high draft picks is a path destined to fail. You use the Leafs history as failure as evidence that they're "poorly run" when I see evidence of various people all failing because they're not willing to commit to a proper full-scale rebuild. It doesn't matter who the handyman is if the blueprints are all wrong and one of the reasons the Leafs haven't been successful is because when someone like Scotty Bowman is brought in and says they need to rebuild they don't get brought on board and the team continues it's search for someone who can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

No I am not telling you your wrong.  Collecting draft picks is only one part of the plan though.  It's a step.  It's the first step in a rebuild.  And I agree with you, the Leafs have never properly taken that step.  They need to take that step.

I see where you are have a problem with my statement.  I should not have said "this approach has not worked out for Edmonton".  What I should have said was "I agree.  I just hope that once the Leafs accumulate that talent, that they build around it better than they have in Edmonton".  It's not the approach that is broken.  It's not the idea of collecting draft picks that is flawed.  It's the implementation after collecting the draft picks that is. 

Right and what I'm saying is that everyone thinks that too or, at the very least, that you shouldn't judge guys like Shanahan, or even Nonis or Burke, as failures because they've been unable to do something that doesn't seem possible. They're not bad hockey executives because they can't snap their fingers and have a #1 center materialize out of thin air or because they haven't been able to consistently add all-star talent drafting in the teens and twenties.

But then why not make the effort to rebuild?  Is that not what makes them somewhat of a bad executive?  And when I say bad executive, I mean bad when compared to someone like Holland, Lombardi, Nill, or Chuck Fletcher.  As an executive, do they not have to take stock of what they have and realize that they have to rebuild because they don't have the core pieces in place?

Yes but do you understand that nobody is arguing the opposite? That there is no "pro-incompetent management" side? It's like if I'm building a house and I say you need to start with a good foundation and you're coming along to say that, actually, I should start by not building on a ancient indian burial ground or a toxic waste dump. Competent management...that's a given.

No it's not like that.  It's like the following conversation:

Nik:  I need to build another house.  I should start with a good foundation.
Sig:  Yes, you know what you should do?
Nik:  If you say hire competent foundation builders then I already know that.
Sig:  That's not what I am saying...Look to you left.
Nik:  Okay
Sig:  See that crumbling house that is falling to the ground from your first attempt. 
Nik:  Yes.  I should not have hired the JFJ's Quickie Foundation.
Sig:  Okay look to your right.
Nik:  Okay
Sig:  See that house that is standing under it's own weight, but that you don't really want to live in because you aren't sure that it will hold up over the long haul
Nik:  Yeah...Shouldn't have gotten Burkie's Pungnacious, Testosterone Induced, Foundation Experts Just Ask Us company.
Sig:  No, but hindsight is twenty twenty.  So what I am saying is, that if you are going to build a foundation this time, I would make sure that you have foundation Rock Stars.  Are you sure the guys you have are?

I realize that Avro wasn't saying "We don't need competent management."  What I am saying is that I hope this group is a competent management group, because if they aren't, then the decisions they make will ultimately be the wrong ones.  They'll collect high draft picks, but pick the wrong player for the wrong reason or something along those lines.   

 

[Kin]

Because if management team "y" can't carry out plan "x" properly, then we need a management "y" that can.  And that should be the first order of business.

Agreed although, as pointed out, even a pretty bad management team in Edmonton has acquired a pretty good collection of young players through this process. 

This discussion is probably moot regardless, because I don't think the current regime has any intention of trading guys like Kessel and Phanuef for picks.

I see where you are have a problem with my statement.  I should not have said "this approach has not worked out for Edmonton".  What I should have said was "I agree.  I just hope that once the Leafs accumulate that talent, that they build around it better than they have in Edmonton".

Right, and that's where I'd go back to the idea that you can't discount the particular disadvantages Edmonton has compared to Toronto in the process when looking at how likely the Leafs are to replicate what they've done. The Leafs are investing a lot of money in the front office, analytics and development. That wouldn't change. 

But then why not make the effort to rebuild?  Is that not what makes them somewhat of a bad executive?  And when I say bad executive, I mean bad when compared to someone like Holland, Lombardi, Nill, or Chuck Fletcher.  As an executive, do they not have to take stock of what they have and realize that they have to rebuild because they don't have the core pieces in place?

Ultimately it's the board's decision. If the board doesn't ever want a season where it looks like they've given up then there's only so much blame you can put on the guys they hire to try and do the job.

No it's not like that.  It's like the following conversation:

[snip]

The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that what JFJ and Burke were trying to build is similar to what I'm suggesting. The foundation in my analogy is the high picks and Burke and JFJ didn't fail because they weren't good at it. They never tried. They tried something entirely different and, no, I don't think that the skillset required to try and "rebuild while competing" or "retooling" are the same thing as having a top draft pick and using it well.

Burke in particular actually had a really good resume of using high draft picks. Pronger, the Sedins, Bobby Ryan...even Kadri and Rielly look like pretty good choices right now. So the idea that he was a bad choice to do what I'm talking about doesn't really have much in the way of evidence behind it. He proved to be a bad choice to do the impossible, yes, but how many different groups of relatively highly touted executives, guys who've had success elsewhere, have to fail doing the exact same thing before you start considering that maybe, just maybe, the issue isn't with the people being hired but what they're being asked to do?

The team desperately needs the kind of #1 centre. Is Nonis to blame that Ryan Getzlaf didn't get to market? Or that Peter Stastny wanted to play in his home town? As much as I disagree with some of their decisions I don't think Dave Nonis or Brian Burke are incompetent hockey executives. I think they were trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole as per the board's request.

What I am saying is that I hope this group is a competent management group, because if they aren't, then the decisions they make will ultimately be the wrong ones. 

Right but A) everyone agrees with that and B) there is some idiot proofing in the process. Stamkos, Tavares, McDavid...those guys are getting taken #1 regardless of who's in charge. Edmonton didn't draft a bunch of magic beans.

 

[freer]

Now if the team could play like last evening every game, I am under the opinion we would all be happy. The fourth line even played more then 8 mins each.

 

[herman]

Buffalo played defense the way that we have for the past 3+ years. Good teams don't give opponents that kind of time and space.

That was a good confidence builder, and demonstrated that when we play the system (for the most part), good things happen. Even though it was against a soft and tired opponent, it was nice to see a good forecheck causing problems, and a good supported backcheck that had waves of Leafs ensure the Sabre lost the puck.

Our team has speed to burn and needs to normalize playing at a pace that is uncomfortable for the other team. Having equalized minutes among 4 lines would go a long way to making that sustainable.

 

[Highlander]

agreed with Freer, the 4th line was actually noticeable last night. I though Holland played very well.

 

[mc]

Effort!

 

[Coco-puffs]

agreed with Freer, the 4th line was actually noticeable last night. I though Holland played very well.

I liked Holland's game as well.  But last night the team gave up 8 shots on net during 5on5 play... the fourth line was on the ice for 3 of them.  Corsi-wise, the three of them were a combined -11 last night. 

I got chastised for bring up their bad possession stats after a few games for "such a small sample size"... but the sample size keeps growing and the results remain the same- even against the worst team in the league.  I don't blame Carlyle for limiting their minutes at this point- they haven't earned more.

 

[Highlander]

Perhaps if they do continue to play a bit more then they would gel more and their possession numbers would come up.  Even with the low Corsi, they do give the first lines a break and there seemed to be considerable more energy in our of the top 6 this game.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

agreed with Freer, the 4th line was actually noticeable last night. I though Holland played very well.

I liked Holland's game as well.  But last night the team gave up 8 shots on net during 5on5 play... the fourth line was on the ice for 3 of them.  Corsi-wise, the three of them were a combined -11 last night. 

I got chastised for bring up their bad possession stats after a few games for "such a small sample size"... but the sample size keeps growing and the results remain the same- even against the worst team in the league.  I don't blame Carlyle for limiting their minutes at this point- they haven't earned more.

Well individually only Holland has even 60:00 worth of 5 on 5 ice-time so far.  They're getting really low minutes and starting less than 20% of their shifts off face-offs in the offensive zone, the lowest figure on the team (Orr last season started 30% in the OZ, for example), so that will contribute to chances against.

If it continues, it will be a problem to address but it's hard to say right now because of how they've been used.  I imagine once Booth comes back you'll see someone knocked down to the 4th line and that may help as well.

 

[ZBBM]

As was stated several times in the GDT, you can't draw a single valid conclusion about the Leafs' play from last night's game, other than they managed to beat a club that looked like it belongs in the ECHL.

 

[2badknees]

As was stated several times in the GDT, you can't draw a single valid conclusion about the Leafs' play from last night's game, other than they managed to beat a club that looked like it belongs in the ECHL.

That. Although, the game reaffirms that if Kessel is given space, he makes any player on his line start looking worth his contract.

I think tougher linemates would make kessel more consistently effective against tighter checking teams. I'd really like to see (don't laugh) Komorov on his line, along with Santorelli, who's completely outplayed Kadri, imo.