Leafs claim Tim Erixon off waivers

[Joe S.]

This feels like the 80's again to some extent.

Hey we were bad in the 80's, but we still made the playoffs.

That's a reflection of the 1980s NHL, not of the Leafs.  In 1985-86, the Leafs made the playoffs with 57 points and the 3rd worst record in the NHL.

Also - 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs... there was almost no point to the regular season.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Still better then any of us have seen in the last 10 plus years.

The recent Leaf teams have mostly had better records and been better teams than most of the Leafs teams from the 80s, so, no. Simply making the playoffs doesn't mean much now. It meant even less then, when all you had to do to make it was not be the worst team in your division.

freer, you obviously didn't suffer through the 80s with this team.  They were simply terrible.

 

[freer]

Still better then any of us have seen in the last 10 plus years.

The recent Leaf teams have mostly had better records and been better teams than most of the Leafs teams from the 80s, so, no. Simply making the playoffs doesn't mean much now. It meant even less then, when all you had to do to make it was not be the worst team in your division.

freer, you obviously didn't suffer through the 80s with this team.  They were simply terrible.

I have been suffering since 75. So yes they were bad. They made the playoffs which is the goal for a team.

 

[Highlander]

I watched the 4 cups in the 60's so since 68 my suffering began. And when you have witnessed that many cups it is a severe drought to be sure.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Still better then any of us have seen in the last 10 plus years.

The recent Leaf teams have mostly had better records and been better teams than most of the Leafs teams from the 80s, so, no. Simply making the playoffs doesn't mean much now. It meant even less then, when all you had to do to make it was not be the worst team in your division.

freer, you obviously didn't suffer through the 80s with this team.  They were simply terrible.

I have been suffering since 75. So yes they were bad. They made the playoffs which is the goal for a team.

I think the goal of the team is to win, not just make the playoffs, which is something they didn't do much of.  The 80s, in summary:

- Combined regular season record:  266 - 441 - 93
- Combined playoff record:  17 - 24
- They did not qualify for the playoffs in 4 of their 10 seasons (not easy to do at that time unless you were really terrible)
- One of the six seasons they did qualify, they didn't win a single game
- Two of the six seasons they did qualify, they won one game
- For the 4 seasons between 1988 and 1991, the failed to qualify 3 times, and won a single game the other. 

 

[freer]

Still better then any of us have seen in the last 10 plus years.

The recent Leaf teams have mostly had better records and been better teams than most of the Leafs teams from the 80s, so, no. Simply making the playoffs doesn't mean much now. It meant even less then, when all you had to do to make it was not be the worst team in your division.

freer, you obviously didn't suffer through the 80s with this team.  They were simply terrible.

I have been suffering since 75. So yes they were bad. They made the playoffs which is the goal for a team.

I think the goal of the team is to win, not just make the playoffs, which is something they didn't do much of.  The 80s, in summary:

- Combined regular season record:  266 - 441 - 93
- Combined playoff record:  17 - 24
- They did not qualify for the playoffs in 4 of their 10 seasons (not easy to do at that time unless you were really terrible)
- One of the six seasons they did qualify, they didn't win a single game
- Two of the six seasons they did qualify, they won one game
- For the 4 seasons between 1988 and 1991, the failed to qualify 3 times, and won a single game the other.

So what is your opinion on SJ then finish 1st or 2nd over a 5 year period not winning a round in the playoffs. The playoffs are a different season, any team can win. IMO that is a teams goal to make the playoffs and try to get on a run.

 

[Kin]

So what is your opinion on SJ then finish 1st or 2nd over a 5 year period not winning a round in the playoffs. The playoffs are a different season, any team can win. IMO that is a teams goal to make the playoffs and try to get on a run.

The Sharks have never, in the history of their franchise, gone 5 years without winning a playoff round.

 

[freer]

So what is your opinion on SJ then finish 1st or 2nd over a 5 year period not winning a round in the playoffs. The playoffs are a different season, any team can win. IMO that is a teams goal to make the playoffs and try to get on a run.

The Sharks have never, in the history of their franchise, gone 5 years without winning a playoff round.

Fine you are correct. I have misspoken. They have never lived up to their expectations in the playoffs.

 

[Kin]

Fine you are correct. I have misspoken. They have never lived up to their expectations in the playoffs.

I don't think that's particularly true either. They've had some notable flameouts, sure, but they've had years where they lived up to reasonable expectations. In 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 they made the Conference Finals both years before being knocked out by first a Canucks team that won the Presidents Trophy and then a Blackhawks team that would go on to win the Cup and only had one fewer point in the regular season.

 

[Al14]

Still better then any of us have seen in the last 10 plus years.

The recent Leaf teams have mostly had better records and been better teams than most of the Leafs teams from the 80s, so, no. Simply making the playoffs doesn't mean much now. It meant even less then, when all you had to do to make it was not be the worst team in your division.

freer, you obviously didn't suffer through the 80s with this team.  They were simply terrible.

At least during the '80s, as bad as they were, I felt more optimistic for the future.  Now, for the past 10 plus years, we have had nothing but failure, and, more recently, collapse after collapse, when things were thought to be so promising.

Trading those draft picks for Kessel was pure stupidity on Burke's part IMHO.  It was too soon to make a deal for this kind of player IMHO.

 

[bustaheims]

At least during the '80s, as bad as they were, I felt more optimistic for the future.  Now, for the past 10 plus years, we have had nothing but failure, and, more recently, collapse after collapse, when things were thought to be so promising.

Really? You remember the 80s much differently than I do. In the 80s, you knew going into the season that the Leafs weren't going anywhere. They might make the playoffs by virtue of not being the worst team in their division, but, they certainly weren't going to accomplish anything there. There was also little faith in the drafting or development system and an understanding that just about any player that played well enough to earn a substantial contract (by that era's standards) was going to shipped out of town for pennies on the dollar and that the Leafs would basically be expansion team bad for the foreseeable future. There was no hope for the future until after Harold Ballard passed.

While the team may not have had great results in the last decade, there is very much hope for the future right now. There are some bright prospects in the the system, management seems to be getting on the right page and the focus of the organization seems to be about improvement on the ice, whereas, in the 80s, it was about improving Ballard's bank balance.

 

[Kin]

Yeah. I've been about as critical of MLSE as it's humanly possible to be but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that things were better when the team was owned by a lunatic who would make terrible trades out of spite.

 

[Al14]

At least during the '80s, as bad as they were, I felt more optimistic for the future.  Now, for the past 10 plus years, we have had nothing but failure, and, more recently, collapse after collapse, when things were thought to be so promising.

Really? You remember the 80s much differently than I do. In the 80s, you knew going into the season that the Leafs weren't going anywhere. They might make the playoffs by virtue of not being the worst team in their division, but, they certainly weren't going to accomplish anything there. There was also little faith in the drafting or development system and an understanding that just about any player that played well enough to earn a substantial contract (by that era's standards) was going to shipped out of town for pennies on the dollar and that the Leafs would basically be expansion team bad for the foreseeable future. There was no hope for the future until after Harold Ballard passed.

While the team may not have had great results in the last decade, there is very much hope for the future right now. There are some bright prospects in the the system, management seems to be getting on the right page and the focus of the organization seems to be about improvement on the ice, whereas, in the 80s, it was about improving Ballard's bank balance.

I said the '80s were bad!  There is no question that things were really bad under Ballard!  However, I just felt more optimistic for the future back then than I do today.  I was a lot younger man back than, therefore, I had more time to see a turn around for the team.  Now that I'm turning 60 in a couple of weeks, I'm far less optimistic in seeing a team that will be competitive enough to win a Stanley cup anytime soon.

It's a personal thing for me.  I'd like to see a Maple Leaf Stanley cup championship as an adult.  Time is ticking down for me.  That is why I feel less hope now, than I did in the '80s!

 

[Frank E]

I'm with Busta and Nik on this one, this isn't nearly as bad as it was. There's a team here willing to spend to the cap, and it looks as though there's a better plan in place now.

What I think might be particularly difficult is getting through the 15-16 season...oh man, that's going to be ugly.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Yeah. I've been about as critical of MLSE as it's humanly possible to be but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that things were better when the team was owned by a lunatic who would make terrible trades out of spite.

I credit being a fan in the 80s as the reason that this decade-long debacle hasn't deterred me from being a Leaf fan now.  I can't foresee how things could ever be that bad again.  On the flip side, at least tickets were more affordable in those days, and I did enjoy the Gardens.  I've never been to the ACC for a game as I don't live there anymore, but it seems like a pretty sterile environment.  Aside from the whole winning thing, it reminds me of the difference between watching the Jays at CNE stadium vs Skydome.

 

[L K]

Yeah. I've been about as critical of MLSE as it's humanly possible to be but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that things were better when the team was owned by a lunatic who would make terrible trades out of spite.

Ballard joined the Leafs in 58.  They won 4 cups during his reign.  Therefore Ballard was awesome and MLSE is not.  Let's just brush aside the rapists he employed and covered up.  Let's ignore the fraud, criminal charges, the fact that he staged a coup to get ownership in the first place, etc.

I understand that we tend to whitewash bad things over time but at no point in the history or future of this organization will the Ballard era ever be "better" than any other point.

 

[Kin]

I credit being a fan in the 80s as the reason that this decade-long debacle hasn't deterred me from being a Leaf fan now.  I can't foresee how things could ever be that bad again.  On the flip side, at least tickets were more affordable in those days, and I did enjoy the Gardens.  I've never been to the ACC for a game as I don't live there anymore, but it seems like a pretty sterile environment.  Aside from the whole winning thing, it reminds me of the difference between watching the Jays at CNE stadium vs Skydome.

As someone who's been to the ACC a fair number of times I'd tell you that it's really just a matter of perspective. The ACC is "sterile" to some extent but that has much more to do with design than it does with people. It's a fairly cookie cutter modern arena and doesn't have the idiosyncratic appeal the Gardens did but I guarantee you could find people saying the same thing in Boston or Chicago or LA or any city where a beloved old arena was replaced by a slick surfaced place designed to get people to empty their pockets.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I credit being a fan in the 80s as the reason that this decade-long debacle hasn't deterred me from being a Leaf fan now.  I can't foresee how things could ever be that bad again.  On the flip side, at least tickets were more affordable in those days, and I did enjoy the Gardens.  I've never been to the ACC for a game as I don't live there anymore, but it seems like a pretty sterile environment.  Aside from the whole winning thing, it reminds me of the difference between watching the Jays at CNE stadium vs Skydome.

As someone who's been to the ACC a fair number of times I'd tell you that it's really just a matter of perspective. The ACC is "sterile" to some extent but that has much more to do with design than it does with people. It's a fairly cookie cutter modern arena and doesn't have the idiosyncratic appeal the Gardens did but I guarantee you could find people saying the same thing in Boston or Chicago or LA or any city where a beloved old arena was replaced by a slick surfaced place designed to get people to empty their pockets.

That's a good point.  I suppose they're just different, and more or less appealing depending on what you're after.

I read an entertaining piece in the NY Times yesterday about Nassau Coliseum.  On one hand you've got an experience where the stadium is loud and you're close to the action, but maybe it's missing some of the creature comforts and perks of a modern stadium.  I'm guessing when the team moves you'll have a good split of people arguing for/against which provides a better experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/sports/hockey/nassau-coliseum-offers-little-room-for-tv-crews-or-visiting-backup-goalies.html

 

[cw]

Yeah. I've been about as critical of MLSE as it's humanly possible to be but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that things were better when the team was owned by a lunatic who would make terrible trades out of spite.

Ballard joined the Leafs in 58.  They won 4 cups during his reign.  Therefore Ballard was awesome and MLSE is not.  Let's just brush aside the rapists he employed and covered up.  Let's ignore the fraud, criminal charges, the fact that he staged a coup to get ownership in the first place, etc.

I understand that we tend to whitewash bad things over time but at no point in the history or future of this organization will the Ballard era ever be "better" than any other point.

Ballard didn't take control until Stafford Smythe died in the early '70s. They didn't win "4 cups during his reign. "

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I'm with Busta and Nik on this one, this isn't nearly as bad as it was. There's a team here willing to spend to the cap, and it looks as though there's a better plan in place now.

What I think might be particularly difficult is getting through the 15-16 season...oh man, that's going to be ugly.

That last part especially is what has me worried. The media right now is waxing lyrical about how good it is that they are finally rebuilding.

I get the impression that when they are thoroughly embarrassed regularly over the next 18 months the tide will turn and they will start to beat them up about it and second guess every prospect that isn't in the NHL already.

Then you'll have the talk radio phone-in mouth breathers repeating everything Steve Simmons wrote that morning.

This will create another unbearable situation for everyone in the organization to deal with. I just hope they are strong enough to stay the course and call out the media when they start their crap.