Leafs trade Lindholm for Nic Petan

[Zee]

Goat has a fire under his ass now that the Leafs picked up another depth center

 

[hockeyfan1]

Some stats: Petan vs Lindholm comparison

Click on the image, then click each image again to see graphs stats in full)
[tweet]1100136621964431360[/tweet]

Well, all in all, benvenuti a Toronto, fellow Italian! 

(His brother Alex Petan plays for HC Bolzano - Italy - in the Euro Champions HL).

 

[Zee]

Some stats: Petan vs Lindholm comparison

Click on the image, then click each image again to see graphs stats in full)
[tweet]1100136621964431360[/tweet]

Well, all in all, benvenuti a Toronto, fellow Italian!  [emoji846]

(His brother Alex Petan plays for HC Bolzano - Italy - in the Euro Champions HL).

Didn't realize he was from the boot. Where's the vowel at the end? Petane, Petani, Petano

 

[herman]

Silly to restrict the assessment solely to the day they devoted countless resources to making an overblown event, thus omitting the Muzzin trade as part of the equation.

I think it was an assessment of the team post-Muzzin so I'm not sure why you'd take that into the equation. All three things are still areas of need with Muzzin on the team.

Fair enough.

Are they problems to be solved specifically by acquiring players? I think a lot of it is covered with internal growth and time.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

For what it's worth, the Leafs are 8-3-2 since the Muzzin trade. 5th in points and 6th in points percentage in that span. 6th in CF%. 4th best GF/60 and 9th best GA/60 (at 5-on-5). Middling speciality teams has held them back from being even better: 12th in PP and 22nd in PK.

Of course the problem is that Tampa and Boston are 1-2 in points percentage in that span, with 0 regulation losses for either of them.

 

[Kin]

Silly to restrict the assessment solely to the day they devoted countless resources to making an overblown event, thus omitting the Muzzin trade as part of the equation.

I think it was an assessment of the team post-Muzzin so I'm not sure why you'd take that into the equation. All three things are still areas of need with Muzzin on the team.

Fair enough.

Are they problems to be solved specifically by acquiring players? I think a lot of it is covered with internal growth and time.

I appreciate that you're inclined to reflexively defend this management team but this is me, in the post you're ostensibly responding to:

Where I think I disagree is the idea that today was a good day to do any of those things. That said, I agree that these are things that the team should keep an eye towards as they enter a different phase of team building.

I can't vouch for the quality, or necessity, of all of yesterday's coverage but I don't think "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the teams that figure to be in this year's playoffs and did they address them today" was particularly out of bounds as a topic.

 

[herman]

I appreciate that you're inclined to reflexively defend this management team but this is me, in the post you're ostensibly responding to:

Where I think I disagree is the idea that today was a good day to do any of those things. That said, I agree that these are things that the team should keep an eye towards as they enter a different phase of team building.

I can't vouch for the quality, or necessity, of all of yesterday's coverage but I don't think "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the teams that figure to be in this year's playoffs and did they address them today" was particularly out of bounds as a topic.

I didn't have any issue with what you said, more with what TSN was saying.

 

[Kin]

I didn't have any issue with what you said, more with what TSN was saying.

TSN was just handicapping a horse race. Those are needs, it would have improved the team's short term chances to address them and the Leafs didn't do it.

I'm all for "in the long run, the Leafs probably did the smart thing", it's why I said that myself, but I think TSN can be forgiven for occasionally thinking that there are people out there who are interested in who's going to win and lose these games rather than just grading each other in a game of Franchise Manager.

 

[herman]

I didn't have any issue with what you said, more with what TSN was saying.

TSN was just handicapping a horse race. Those are needs, it would have improved the team's short term chances to address them and the Leafs didn't do it.

I'm all for "in the long run, the Leafs probably did the smart thing", it's why I said that myself, but I think TSN can be forgiven for occasionally thinking that there are people out there who are interested in who's going to win and lose these games rather than just grading each other in a game of Franchise Manager.

I'm totally here to play Franchise Manager!

So does the question then become "what could the Leafs have done to address those needs while netting out positively?" Because it really sounds like TSN just wants to trade Nylander.

 

[Kin]

So does the question then become "what could the Leafs have done to address those needs while netting out positively?" Because it really sounds like TSN just wants to trade Nylander.

No, I think for TSN's purposes the question is and remains "What's going to happen in this year's playoffs?" because that's a question that interests some people. If the Leafs had dealt a 2021 first rounder for a third liner with grit you and I would have probably disapproved as that is an imprudent allocation of resources that just about any chart would tell us is likely net negatively affect the team in 2024 and beyond but it might have put the Leafs in a better situation this year.

 

[herman]

So does the question then become "what could the Leafs have done to address those needs while netting out positively?" Because it really sounds like TSN just wants to trade Nylander.

No, I think for TSN's purposes the question is and remains "What's going to happen in this year's playoffs?" because that's a question that interests some people. If the Leafs had dealt a 2021 first rounder for a third liner with grit you and I would have probably disapproved as that is an imprudent allocation of resources that just about any chart would tell us is likely net negatively affect the team in 2024 and beyond but it might have put the Leafs in a better situation this year.

Outside of Gritty, what one player can change our team toughness quotient to the point of making a real difference? What do they really mean by toughness anyway?

I just don't think there are any available options on the trade market at this juncture that can both make a difference and not critically detract from what the Leafs already have today. I guess the only one I can think of might be a straight swap of Gardiner for Trouba.

 

[Kin]

Outside of Gritty, what one player can change our team toughness quotient to the point of making a real difference? What do they really mean by toughness anyway?

Well, "real difference" is a vague enough concept that there's no definitive way to come to a meaningful conclusion there. Clearly the idea is that toughness is an attribute and that certain players add to it. If the Leafs had brought in a player that improved that attribute, I'm guessing the thinking would then be that the Leafs chances improve, however slightly. Thus, in the TSN's panel's opinion, the Leafs would have a marginally improved chance in this year's playoffs.

I just don't think there are any available options on the trade market at this juncture that can both make a difference and not critically detract from what the Leafs already have today. I guess the only one I can think of might be a straight swap of Gardiner for Trouba.

I think it's generally fair to say that we don't really have any idea what options might be available for a team. That said, I understand that you prize other attributes above toughness and so some of the moves potentially available to the Leafs that might have improved them in the eyes of the TSN panel might not have done so in your eyes.

What is the world coming to when some of us disagree with TSN panelists? Well, death by global warming if the India/Pakistan war doesn't get us first I suppose.

 

[herman]

Well, "real difference" is a vague enough concept that there's no definitive way to come to a meaningful conclusion there. Clearly the idea is that toughness is an attribute and that certain players add to it. If the Leafs had brought in a player that improved that attribute, I'm guessing the thinking would then be that the Leafs chances improve, however slightly. Thus, in the TSN's panel's opinion, the Leafs would have a marginally improved chance in this year's playoffs.

I'm curious to know what others consider 'toughness' because there is a very clear hockey stereotype that I'd be loathe to consider universally effective, and there's my version of toughness which I think the Leafs carry a lot of. The end goal of the stereotypically toughness, by my estimation, is using physicality to knock pucks loose and then maintaining control of it and taking it to the dirty areas of the ice where goals are scored. A large segment of the fanbase really focuses on the first half of that (physicality), and I prefer to focus on the puck taking/holding aspect regardless of how it is achieved.

When in good position, there are many Leafs who are 'tough' on the puck either as takers, holders, or ideally both:
Both: Tavares, Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Kadri, Dermott, Gardiner, Muzzin
Takers: Hyman, Brown, Kapanen, Johnsson, Moore, Gauthier, Zaitsev, Hainsey, Marleau
Holders: Ennis, Rielly

The problem is that sometimes our players aren't in good positions to be effectively tough on the puck as it does entail physical sacrifice at times, and that criticism is fair. For me, toughness is that commitment to playing and maintaining that strong position that stays on top of the puck or winning it back regularly.

I think it's generally fair to say that we don't really have any idea what options might be available for a team. That said, I understand that you prize other attributes above toughness and so some of the moves potentially available to the Leafs that might have improved them in the eyes of the TSN panel might not have done so in your eyes.

What is the world coming to when some of us disagree with TSN panelists? Well, death by global warming if the India/Pakistan war doesn't get us first I suppose.

I wanted to have this discussion not so much to smush TSN, but because they drive so much of the narrative around here. It's a good proxy for the general fan's take.

 

[Kin]

I'm curious to know what others consider 'toughness' because there is a very clear hockey stereotype that I'd be loathe to consider universally effective, and there's my version of toughness which I think the Leafs carry a lot of. The end goal of the stereotypically toughness, by my estimation, is using physicality to knock pucks loose and then maintaining control of it and taking it to the dirty areas of the ice where goals are scored. A large segment of the fanbase really focuses on the first half of that (physicality), and I prefer to focus on the puck taking/holding aspect regardless of how it is achieved.

Well, in the interest of playing Devil's Advocate I think the argument you tend to hear is as much about the mental effect that hits have as the physical realities of knocking pucks loose. The idea that defenders rush their decision making if they know that a big body check might be coming their way if they hang onto the puck for too long. Something that may not add up to much cumulatively or affect a huge number of shot attempts but result in the occasional high value chance that can make the difference in a closely contested match. Likewise, I think that physical toughness also registers in whether or not players are then immune to that pressure and willing/able to absorb contact and not rush the play.

I imagine this takes on some added importance when talking about the playoffs as the general perception is that players especially need to be able to make good decisions and well-executed plays in games where Refs have "swallowed the whistle" as that's typically how things go post-season.

That said, I don't think anyone is making this argument from the position that the more analytically driven observers of the game agree with this as it's not a quantitative argument.

 

[herman]

Well, in the interest of playing Devil's Advocate I think the argument you tend to hear is as much about the mental effect that hits have as the physical realities of knocking pucks loose. The idea that defenders rush their decision making if they know that a big body check might be coming their way if they hang onto the puck for too long. Something that may not add up to much cumulatively or affect a huge number of shot attempts but result in the occasional high value chance that can make the difference in a closely contested match. Likewise, I think that physical toughness also registers in whether or not players are then immune to that pressure and willing/able to absorb contact and not rush the play.

I imagine this takes on some added importance when talking about the playoffs as the general perception is that players especially need to be able to make good decisions and well-executed plays in games where Refs have "swallowed the whistle" as that's typically how things go post-season.

That said, I don't think anyone is making this argument from the position that the more analytically driven observers of the game agree with this as it's not a quantitative argument.

I'm open to qualitative reasoning, and I do think there is some merit to players rushing their plays when they know they're getting hit by a crazy person, but I also know that good players just calibrate to deal with it. Adding a hitter of our own by way of trade is not exactly an efficient way to go about adding that element. It has a to be a nearly team-wide commitment for it to have appreciable effect on a game. We had Martin + Komarov for 1.5 seasons I would wager the iteration of the team without them is better.

The Leafs do lay 'hits' but on the whole they don't really target the centre mass and generally aim for the carrier's hands to take away their ability to control the puck.

 

[Kin]

I'm open to qualitative reasoning, and I do think there is some merit to players rushing their plays when they know they're getting hit by a crazy person, but I also know that good players just calibrate to deal with it. Adding a hitter of our own by way of trade is not exactly an efficient way to go about adding that element. It has a to be a nearly team-wide commitment for it to have appreciable effect on a game. We had Martin + Komarov for 1.5 seasons I would wager the iteration of the team without them is better.

That strikes me as a somewhat unfair comparison as I think the reason for the iteration of the team without them being better has much more to do with guys like Muzzin and Tavares and less with whether Komarov or Gauthier is on the 4th line.

But even then, and getting back to how I agree with you that yesterday wasn't the best day to address those things, I think people who are real advocates of the efficacy of the hitters would say that what you should be looking to have are guys who aren't offensive black holes the way Martin and Komarov were but who do add that element of physicality. Your Gary Roberts/Owen Nolan types.

So, again, I don't think that yesterday provided a great opportunity to land one of those guys but it is something I'd like to see Dubas look to add in the future. Even if it means not drafting all the 5'8, 20 year olds he can.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Is there very many Owen Nolan/Gary Roberts type players left in the game?

 

[Kin]

Is there very many Owen Nolan/Gary Roberts type players left in the game?

I think that if you look at the rosters of recent cup winners you're pretty likely to find at least one guy who broadly fits into that mold. Whether it be a Brandon Saad or Tom Wilson or Dustin Brown or Marchand or Byfuglien when he was a forward or so on/so forth.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/MurphysLaw74/status/1100452004814565376

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/MurphysLaw74/status/1100452004814565376

I should point out this guy has a worse track record at these things than Eklund, which is obviously saying something.

Some examples, via @twolinepass/Ryan Lambert: