Leafs' D is in Better Shape Than We Think?

[TBLeafer]

I know many say that D is one of our biggest areas that need addressing at the NHL level.

Thing is having acquired Connor Carrick and Nikita Zaitsev, I think Shannyco has done a lot to address it at the NHL level in acquiring those two.

Its just that we fans don't know what they'll amount to at the NHL level. As we are rebuilding, I'd say we give these two a chance to outperform their contracts though an evaluation period of NHL action in the Fall, before trading for or overpaying for a top 4 D via UFA.

Rielly - Zaitsev
Gardiner - Carrick

Potentially solid top 4.

 

[Frank E]

I know many say that D is one of our biggest areas that need addressing at the NHL level.

Thing is having acquired Connor Carrick and Nikita Zaitsev, I think Shannyco has done a lot to address it at the NHL level in acquiring those two.

Its just that we fans don't know what they'll amount to at the NHL level. As we are rebuilding, I'd say we give these two a chance to outperform their contracts though an evaluation period of NHL action in the Fall, before trading for or overpaying for a top 4 D via UFA.

Rielly - Zaitsev
Gardiner - Carrick

Potentially solid top 4.

So, 2 things:

1.  They really haven't addressed anything at the NHL level yet since Carrick and Zaitsev are very much unproven and make up half of your top 4.
2.  I think the patience you're preaching there for the D is the same patience that many have tried to convince you to have with respect to the largely unproven forward corps.

 

[Kin]

I don't think there's been a lot of advocating for signing a top 4 defenseman as a UFA this summer(is there even one legitimately available?) and most of the talk about trading for one that's been around here has been talking about actually getting younger as in the JVR for Vatanen discussion.

Personally, I have no problem with seeing what the Leafs have over the course of the season but I think that has to be part of a plan that is actively looking towards building the sort of defense that's not just ok or solid but one that will eventually rival the sorts of cup winning defenses that Chicago or LA have put together. To that end I'm not so much concerned about the 3-4 spots as I am the 1-2.

 

[TBLeafer]

I know many say that D is one of our biggest areas that need addressing at the NHL level.

Thing is having acquired Connor Carrick and Nikita Zaitsev, I think Shannyco has done a lot to address it at the NHL level in acquiring those two.

Its just that we fans don't know what they'll amount to at the NHL level. As we are rebuilding, I'd say we give these two a chance to outperform their contracts though an evaluation period of NHL action in the Fall, before trading for or overpaying for a top 4 D via UFA.

Rielly - Zaitsev
Gardiner - Carrick

Potentially solid top 4.

So, 2 things:

1.  They really haven't addressed anything at the NHL level yet since Carrick and Zaitsev are very much unproven and make up half of your top 4.
2.  I think the patience you're preaching there for the D is the same patience that many have tried to convince you to have with respect to the largely unproven forward corps.

Those D are just "slightly" more proven than Marner and Matthews I think.  Both are older, more developed and performed very well at the professional level, to the point where they are in their development. 

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think there's been a lot of advocating for signing a top 4 defenseman as a UFA this summer(is there even one legitimately available?) and most of the talk about trading for one that's been around here has been talking about actually getting younger as in the JVR for Vatanen discussion.

Personally, I have no problem with seeing what the Leafs have over the course of the season but I think that has to be part of a plan that is actively looking towards building the sort of defense that's not just ok or solid but one that will eventually rival the sorts of cup winning defenses that Chicago or LA have put together. To that end I'm not so much concerned about the 3-4 spots as I am the 1-2.

What did Chicago do to solidify the D the year they finished with just 71 points (to the Leafs 69) in the summer before Toews and Kane made the team?

 

[Kin]

What did Chicago do to solidify the D the year they finished with just 71 points (to the Leafs 69) in the summer before Toews and Kane made the team?

I don't understand the point of the question. I didn't advocate any move outside of keeping an eye to building a unit that is exceptional rather than solid. Much like I'm advocating for all areas with the Leafs, I think the best way to do that is from within.

The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the Leafs have those pieces already within the system and the only real answer at this point is that we don't know. That's why I think it's important to use this as another evaluation year for guys like Rielly and Carrick and to see what they have with Zaitsev. That said, because I'm a believer in hoping for the best and planning for the worst, they still need to have eyes towards what they're going to do if it looks like Rielly is more of a #2 than a #1 and if Zaitsev/Carrick don't look like top pairing guys.

 

[TBLeafer]

What did Chicago do to solidify the D the year they finished with just 71 points (to the Leafs 69) in the summer before Toews and Kane made the team?

I don't understand the point of the question. I didn't advocate any move outside of keeping an eye to building a unit that is exceptional rather than solid. Much like I'm advocating for all areas with the Leafs, I think the best way to do that is from within.

The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the Leafs have those pieces already within the system and the only real answer at this point is that we don't know. That's why I think it's important to use this as another evaluation year for guys like Rielly and Carrick and to see what they have with Zaitsev. That said, because I'm a believer in hoping for the best and planning for the worst, they still need to have eyes towards what they're going to do if it looks like Rielly is more of a #2 than a #1 and if Zaitsev/Carrick don't look like top pairing guys.

Well, they evaluated the forward group and found it severely lacking in capable NHL scoring depth and have publicly stated as such.  What have our own management said in terms of what we still lack on D?

If we're on the same 'evaluation' timeline as Chicago, seeing how Chicago addressed it themselves that summer is relevant, no?

Going off the notion that Rielly and Gardiner is kind of like 2006/07 Keith and Seabrook. Except 36 and 31 points respectively vs. 31 and 24 points respectively.

 

[herman]

What did Chicago do to solidify the D the year they finished with just 71 points (to the Leafs 69) in the summer before Toews and Kane made the team?

I don't understand the point of the question. I didn't advocate any move outside of keeping an eye to building a unit that is exceptional rather than solid. Much like I'm advocating for all areas with the Leafs, I think the best way to do that is from within.

The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the Leafs have those pieces already within the system and the only real answer at this point is that we don't know. That's why I think it's important to use this as another evaluation year for guys like Rielly and Carrick and to see what they have with Zaitsev. That said, because I'm a believer in hoping for the best and planning for the worst, they still need to have eyes towards what they're going to do if it looks like Rielly is more of a #2 than a #1 and if Zaitsev/Carrick don't look like top pairing guys.

Well, they evaluated the forward group and found it severely lacking in capable NHL scoring depth and have publicly stated as such.  What have our own management said in terms of what we still lack on D?

If we're on the same 'evaluation' timeline as Chicago, seeing how Chicago addressed it themselves that summer is relevant, no?

Going off the notion that Rielly and Gardiner is kind of like 2006/07 Keith and Seabrook. Except 36 and 31 points respectively vs. 31 and 24 points respectively.

I think it was mentioned before in other threads, but following a winning teams' model from a different era is not the best course of action. No one is getting that team-friendly Keith deal anymore.

 

[bustaheims]

If we're on the same 'evaluation' timeline as Chicago, seeing how Chicago addressed it themselves that summer is relevant, no?

The issue with your hang up on Chicago is that the "timeline" the Leafs are following isn't one defined by years, but by phases and stages. The Leafs aren't looking to copy exactly what the Hawks did move for move, or build their roster with exact player equivalents. They're looking to emulate the overall strategy that Chicago used, while adapting it to address their own development timeline.

 

[TBLeafer]

What did Chicago do to solidify the D the year they finished with just 71 points (to the Leafs 69) in the summer before Toews and Kane made the team?

I don't understand the point of the question. I didn't advocate any move outside of keeping an eye to building a unit that is exceptional rather than solid. Much like I'm advocating for all areas with the Leafs, I think the best way to do that is from within.

The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the Leafs have those pieces already within the system and the only real answer at this point is that we don't know. That's why I think it's important to use this as another evaluation year for guys like Rielly and Carrick and to see what they have with Zaitsev. That said, because I'm a believer in hoping for the best and planning for the worst, they still need to have eyes towards what they're going to do if it looks like Rielly is more of a #2 than a #1 and if Zaitsev/Carrick don't look like top pairing guys.

Well, they evaluated the forward group and found it severely lacking in capable NHL scoring depth and have publicly stated as such.  What have our own management said in terms of what we still lack on D?

If we're on the same 'evaluation' timeline as Chicago, seeing how Chicago addressed it themselves that summer is relevant, no?

Going off the notion that Rielly and Gardiner is kind of like 2006/07 Keith and Seabrook. Except 36 and 31 points respectively vs. 31 and 24 points respectively.

I think it was mentioned before in other threads, but following a winning teams' model from a different era is not the best course of action. No one is getting that team-friendly Keith deal anymore.

I really like Rielly and Kadri's contracts!

 

[Kin]

 
If we're on the same 'evaluation' timeline as Chicago, seeing how Chicago addressed it themselves that summer is relevant, no?

No. First of all I don't have the foggiest clue what "being on the same evaluation timeline" is supposed to mean and I've never said where Toronto might or might not be on any timeline. What I said is that with Chicago and Los Angeles we've seen the sorts of defenses that are winning championships these days(and San Jose/Pittsburgh are largely similar). They're built around a Norris-calibre #1(Doughty, Letang, Keith, Burns) and an exceptional, Team Canada worthy #2(Seabrook, Vlasic, Muzzin).

It doesn't matter how or when the above teams assembled those players or what they did in any particular year, the point is that eventually they assembled defenses of that quality. Again, I'm not advocating the Leafs do anything specific this off-season to build a carbon-copy of any one team's blueline, I'm saying the eye has to be on putting together a group of that quality.

This year will be an important tool to see where the Leafs are in that process but as of right now I'd say they're fairly far away from it and without a ton of high level blue line prospects in the system.

 

[jonlleafs]

I know many say that D is one of our biggest areas that need addressing at the NHL level.

Thing is having acquired Connor Carrick and Nikita Zaitsev, I think Shannyco has done a lot to address it at the NHL level in acquiring those two.

Its just that we fans don't know what they'll amount to at the NHL level. As we are rebuilding, I'd say we give these two a chance to outperform their contracts though an evaluation period of NHL action in the Fall, before trading for or overpaying for a top 4 D via UFA.

Rielly - Zaitsev
Gardiner - Carrick

Potentially solid top 4.

That group could end up being good, but we need to secure a fast, bruising, defensive-minded, d-man.  All 4 of those guys are offensive defenseman, however, Rielly did well in his own end last season.  I liked what I saw of Carrick and he hits too.  Maybe one of the AHL guys can make a leap up like Andrew Campbell?

 

[TBLeafer]

 
If we're on the same 'evaluation' timeline as Chicago, seeing how Chicago addressed it themselves that summer is relevant, no?

No. First of all I don't have the foggiest clue what "being on the same evaluation timeline" is supposed to mean and I've never said where Toronto might or might not be on any timeline. What I said is that with Chicago and Los Angeles we've seen the sorts of defenses that are winning championships these days(and San Jose/Pittsburgh are largely similar). They're built around a Norris-calibre #1(Doughty, Letang, Keith, Burns) and an exceptional, Team Canada worthy #2(Seabrook, Vlasic, Muzzin).

It doesn't matter how or when the above teams assembled those players or what they did in any particular year, the point is that eventually they assembled defenses of that quality. Again, I'm not advocating the Leafs do anything specific this off-season to build a carbon-copy of any one team's blueline, I'm saying the eye has to be on putting together a group of that quality.

This year will be an important tool to see where the Leafs are in that process but as of right now I'd say they're fairly far away from it and without a ton of high level blue line prospects in the system.

Okay.  Then perhaps its okay to think that the D with Carrick and Zaitsev added in the fall, deserve a further evaluation period before we say for certain that we need trade for or sign that top D partner for Rielly.

The forward group has been evaluated and it has been determined that scoring depth is lacking in the core 6.

 

[TBLeafer]

I know many say that D is one of our biggest areas that need addressing at the NHL level.

Thing is having acquired Connor Carrick and Nikita Zaitsev, I think Shannyco has done a lot to address it at the NHL level in acquiring those two.

Its just that we fans don't know what they'll amount to at the NHL level. As we are rebuilding, I'd say we give these two a chance to outperform their contracts though an evaluation period of NHL action in the Fall, before trading for or overpaying for a top 4 D via UFA.

Rielly - Zaitsev
Gardiner - Carrick

Potentially solid top 4.

That group could end up being good, but we need to secure a fast, bruising, defensive-minded, d-man.  All 4 of those guys are offensive defenseman, however, Rielly did well in his own end last season.  I liked what I saw of Carrick and he hits too.  Maybe one of the AHL guys can make a leap up like Andrew Campbell?

I think a big bruiser defensive D is a bottom pairing guy in today's NHL.  In the top 4, you need defensively sound, mobile, puck moving D as it is a highly possession based game.

That's what the NHL is quickly evolving into.

Bettman and his cronies have brought Euro hockey to North America and it just not the same game anymore. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I really like Rielly and Kadri's contracts!

Sure, they're great, but those two combined with come in at about only $1mil less than Keith and Hossa. One's a Norris winning defenceman and the other is arguably the best two-way winger of his generation. Rielly and Kadri are nowhere near that.

 

[herman]

I really like Rielly and Kadri's contracts!

Sure, they're great, but those two combined with come in at about only $1mil less than Keith and Hossa. One's a Norris winning defenceman and the other is arguably the best two-way winger of his generation. Rielly and Kadri are nowhere near that.

*weeps

 

[jonlleafs]

I really like Rielly and Kadri's contracts!

Sure, they're great, but those two combined with come in at about only $1mil less than Keith and Hossa. One's a Norris winning defenceman and the other is arguably the best two-way winger of his generation. Rielly and Kadri are nowhere near that.

Keith and Hossa signed back when the salaries were lower.  That's not a good comparison.  Something about apples and oranges.

 

[Kin]

Okay.  Then perhaps its okay to think that the D with Carrick and Zaitsev added in the fall, deserve a further evaluation period before we say for certain that we need trade for or sign that top D partner for Rielly.

Well, yeah. Again, the overarching difference between how we look at next year is that I'm firmly on board with using next year for evaluation purposes rather than setting any particular targets for improvement.

That doesn't mean you close yourself off to making improvements if you have the very rare opportunity of adding a young defenseman with top pairing potential are presented(especially if it involves trading away pieces that don't figure to be in your long term plans) but it also doesn't mean jumping to conclusions about what players are before they've played their first game in the NHL.

Again, it's hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. You have to have a gameplan for what you do if after next year you don't think you have internal answers.

The forward group has been evaluated and it has been determined that scoring depth is lacking in the core 6.

And next year the team is already adding(we assume) Matthews and Marner along with full-seasons from Sosh, Hyman, Nylander...maybe Brown and Leipsic. So I'm hopeful that there are internal solutions there too.

But constantly assuming that potential internal solutions are already solutions and that any sort of planning for that not being the case is pointless doesn't read like optimism, it reads like being upset that you have to wait until Christmas morning to open your presents.

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay.  Then perhaps its okay to think that the D with Carrick and Zaitsev added in the fall, deserve a further evaluation period before we say for certain that we need trade for or sign that top D partner for Rielly.

Well, yeah. Again, the overarching difference between how we look at next year is that I'm firmly on board with using next year for evaluation purposes rather than setting any particular targets for improvement.

That doesn't mean you close yourself off to making improvements if you have the very rare opportunity of adding a young defenseman with top pairing potential are presented(especially if it involves trading away pieces that don't figure to be in your long term plans) but it also doesn't mean jumping to conclusions about what players are before they've played their first game in the NHL.

Again, it's hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. You have to have a gameplan for what you do if after next year you don't think you have internal answers.

The forward group has been evaluated and it has been determined that scoring depth is lacking in the core 6.

And next year the team is already adding(we assume) Matthews and Marner along with full-seasons from Sosh, Hyman, Nylander...maybe Brown and Leipsic. So I'm hopeful that there are internal solutions there too.

But constantly assuming that potential internal solutions are already solutions and that any sort of planning for that not being the case is pointless doesn't read like optimism, it reads like being upset that you have to wait until Christmas morning to open your presents.

Look at all that cap we'll have cleared in just 2 seasons to allow for those contingencies...

 

[Kin]

Look at all that cap we'll have cleared in just 2 seasons to allow for those contingencies...

But that's sort of the double-edged sword of the Leafs' situation. Either they don't have internal solutions and they need to address it externally or they do have internal solutions and a lot of that cap space is going to be eaten up by extensions to guys we haven't really factored into long-term budgets.

Now given those two options you absolutely pull for the latter because the reality is that if the Leafs in a year or two's time are sitting around and looking for their version of Keith or Doughty(or, if Rielly's that, Seabrook or Vlasic) the reality is that that's going to be incredibly hard to find even if you had all the cap space in the world. Guys like that just typically aren't for sale.

So in my ideal world what happens this season is the Leafs get a year of useful evaluation of what they have and wind up with another top 5 pick that they can use to add a top tier defensive prospect.