Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

When was the last time we had as full a prospect cupboard as we now do?  How many more are we already going to add this year to that?  We are drafting.  We are developing.  We aren't trading away picks or top prospects.  We haven't been since we drafted Rielly, unless they were already being replaced by a better, already overflowing prospect pool.

The Gilmour years and the Sundin years.  Before getting Gilmour, the Leafs had drafted the likes of Clark, Damphousse, and Courtnall.

In the Sundin years, they had highly touted prospects like Grant Marshall and Brandon Convery to go along with Danil Markov, Tomas Kaberle and Yannick Trembley. 

This myth that the Leafs haven't ever sat there and tried to draft a team is somewhat inaccurate.  The problem has always been that they didn't want to take the time to see it through and they tried to accelerate the plan. 

Adding Stamkos in his prime is not trying to run before they crawl.  They have been crawling along now quietly for the last half decade.

You should probably throw the Reilly year out.  Yes they kept their 1st overall pick, but not much else may come from that draft.  The Nylander year, may be okay.  It's really only last year that they actually started to stockpile picks in an effort to build their prospect base.  So really, they have only been crawling for about a year. 

EDIT:  Sorry, the Reilly year may be okay.  It's the year after that that isn't all that great.  Again, these are still only okay years, not great years. 

Adding Stamkos makes them stand up and teaches them how to walk.

Adding Stamkos sends the message that they want to win now, as opposed to the future and puts pressure on the young players to develop faster than they may be able to develop.  The team will then have to start making decisions to maximize the Stamkos asset, which means that they will have to start sacrificing their future so that they can surround Stamkos with the pieces they need to win now.  Seems oddly familiar.

Draft Schmaft.  Sound familiar?

 

[rdowdall]

60-70 point range, right? 

Not as far as I can tell. Marner's NHLe in his draft year was 52, now it's 53. Although it should be mentioned this isn't a hard science and doesn't account for linemates. I've seen Marner's draft year NHLe at under 50.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/7/7/8897001/2014-15-nhl-equivalencies-of-leafs-prospects

Okay, I view playoffs to be a higher level of competition than league play, no?

44p in 18GP = 2.44 PPG x 82G = 200.08 * .30 = 60 PPG NHLe to be exact, not 70.  Still....

It's a much smaller window though.  You can't project that out over a full season because you are playing the same team night in and not out.  By the same token Claude Giroux should be Gretzky.

 

[rdowdall]

When was the last time we had as full a prospect cupboard as we now do?  How many more are we already going to add this year to that?  We are drafting.  We are developing.  We aren't trading away picks or top prospects.  We haven't been since we drafted Rielly, unless they were already being replaced by a better, already overflowing prospect pool.

The Gilmour years and the Sundin years.  Before getting Gilmour, the Leafs had drafted the likes of Clark, Damphousse, and Courtnall.

In the Sundin years, they had highly touted prospects like Grant Marshall and Brandon Convery to go along with Danil Markov, Tomas Kaberle and Yannick Trembley. 

This myth that the Leafs haven't ever sat there and tried to draft a team is somewhat inaccurate.  The problem has always been that they didn't want to take the time to see it through and they tried to accelerate the plan. 

Adding Stamkos in his prime is not trying to run before they crawl.  They have been crawling along now quietly for the last half decade.

You should probably throw the Reilly year out.  Yes they kept their 1st overall pick, but not much else may come from that draft.  The Nylander year, may be okay.  It's really only last year that they actually started to stockpile picks in an effort to build their prospect base.  So really, they have only been crawling for about a year. 

EDIT:  Sorry, the Reilly year may be okay.  It's the year after that that isn't all that great.  Again, these are still only okay years, not great years. 

Adding Stamkos makes them stand up and teaches them how to walk.

Adding Stamkos sends the message that they want to win now, as opposed to the future and puts pressure on the young players to develop faster than they may be able to develop.  The team will then have to start making decisions to maximize the Stamkos asset, which means that they will have to start sacrificing their future so that they can surround Stamkos with the pieces they need to win now.  Seems oddly familiar.

Draft Schmaft.  Sound familiar?

Exactly, an approach taken AFTER getting Gilmour and trying to maximize that asset in a win now mode.

 

[Kin]

Okay, I view playoffs to be a higher level of competition than league play, no?

That might very well be what you view but for statistical projection models that "higher level of competition" is largely washed out by it being a much smaller sample size. There's a reason that the guys who invented NHLe don't say "But just use playoff numbers instead because it's more accurate".

NHLe, to the extent that it's valuable as a projection tool, needs more than 18 games. Cherry picking the playoffs because it's the only set of numbers that fit your assertion is on it's face not super honest but you at least have to admit that Marner's full season NHLe certainly proves your claim that every projection model has him as being roughly Kane's equivalent is disingenuous, especially when you're not factoring age into the equation.

44p in 18GP = 2.44 PPG x 82G = 200.08 * .30 = 60 PPG NHLe to be exact, not 70.  Still....

Still, that's where we buck up against the problems with NHLe as hard evidence. Jonathan Drouin, in his Draft+1 year, had 41 points in 16 playoff games. Using the same calculation:

41 in 16 = 2.56 ppg x 82 gp = 210.13 x .28 = 59 points in 82 NHL games.

But what actually happened to Drouin as a rookie? He scored 4 goals and 32 points in 70 games, a little better than half of his NHLe. So the idea of NHLe as the basket to carry all of your eggs wouldn't really even hold up if it said what you claim.

 

[TBLeafer]

When was the last time we had as full a prospect cupboard as we now do?  How many more are we already going to add this year to that?  We are drafting.  We are developing.  We aren't trading away picks or top prospects.  We haven't been since we drafted Rielly, unless they were already being replaced by a better, already overflowing prospect pool.

The Gilmour years and the Sundin years.  Before getting Gilmour, the Leafs had drafted the likes of Clark, Damphousse, and Courtnall.

In the Sundin years, they had highly touted prospects like Grant Marshall and Brandon Convery to go along with Danil Markov, Tomas Kaberle and Yannick Trembley. 

This myth that the Leafs haven't ever sat there and tried to draft a team is somewhat inaccurate.  The problem has always been that they didn't want to take the time to see it through and they tried to accelerate the plan. 

Adding Stamkos in his prime is not trying to run before they crawl.  They have been crawling along now quietly for the last half decade.

You should probably throw the Reilly year out.  Yes they kept their 1st overall pick, but not much else may come from that draft.  The Nylander year, may be okay.  It's really only last year that they actually started to stockpile picks in an effort to build their prospect base.  So really, they have only been crawling for about a year. 

EDIT:  Sorry, the Reilly year may be okay.  It's the year after that that isn't all that great.  Again, these are still only okay years, not great years. 

Adding Stamkos makes them stand up and teaches them how to walk.

Adding Stamkos sends the message that they want to win now, as opposed to the future and puts pressure on the young players to develop faster than they may be able to develop.  The team will then have to start making decisions to maximize the Stamkos asset, which means that they will have to start sacrificing their future so that they can surround Stamkos with the pieces they need to win now.  Seems oddly familiar.

Draft Schmaft.  Sound familiar?

Exactly, an approach taken AFTER getting Gilmour and trying to maximize that asset in a win now mode.

Except the entire philosophy is different now even AFTER we sign Stamkos if he comes available.  How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons?  Nothing is abandoned.

Acceleration perhaps, but without shortcutting this time around. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay, I view playoffs to be a higher level of competition than league play, no?

That might very well be what you view but for statistical projection models that "higher level of competition" is largely washed out by it being a much smaller sample size. There's a reason that the guys who invented NHLe don't say "But just use playoff numbers instead because it's more accurate".

NHLe, to the extent that it's valuable as a projection tool, needs more than 18 games. Cherry picking the playoffs because it's the only set of numbers that fit your assertion is on it's face not super honest but you at least have to admit that Marner's full season NHLe certainly proves your claim that every projection model has him as being roughly Kane's equivalent is disingenuous, especially when you're not factoring age into the equation.

44p in 18GP = 2.44 PPG x 82G = 200.08 * .30 = 60 PPG NHLe to be exact, not 70.  Still....

Still, that's where we buck up against the problems with NHLe as hard evidence. Jonathan Drouin, in his Draft+1 year, had 41 points in 16 playoff games. Using the same calculation:

41 in 16 = 2.56 ppg x 82 gp = 210.13 x .28 = 59 points in 82 NHL games.

But what actually happened to Drouin as a rookie? He scored 4 goals and 32 points in 70 games, a little better than half of his NHLe. So the idea of NHLe as the basket to carry all of your eggs wouldn't really even hold up if it said what you claim.

Okay.  I'm just compounding things combined with other stuff I've read.  I guess an NHL scouting director is disingenuous too.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/scouts-on-the-good-and-bad-of-marners-game/

"I think you can draw a straight line between Marner and [former Knight] Patrick Kane," an NHL scouting director said. "The question a lot of people ask is whether Marner?s physically ready to play at the next level. At this point, you should just stop asking the question.

Let's EXTEND the sample size then.  Combine the regular season with the playoffs and the memorial Cup...

 

[iwas11in67]

I would only sign him without a no trade clause. See how it goes and then trade him for some decent players that never cost us anything in the first place. He can mentor the "future core". He must come to realize that no cup would be in his future here.

 

[Kin]

Okay.  I just compounding things combined with other stuff I've read.

Well, what you said is that every projection model has him as good as Kane when in fact the most basic one we have has him significantly lower even before you factor for age/linemates/whatever else makes NHLe not something to invest fully in.

I guess an NHL scouting director is disingenuous too.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/scouts-on-the-good-and-bad-of-marners-game/

"I think you can draw a straight line between Marner and [former Knight] Patrick Kane," an NHL scouting director said. "The question a lot of people ask is whether Marner?s physically ready to play at the next level. At this point, you should just stop asking the question.

It's not necessarily him being disingenuous(and it certainly doesn't say Marner is 100% as good as Patrick Kane) but scouting reports are wrong all the time. How many "Luke Schenn is the next Adam Foote" reports did we see? It's certainly not evidence of anything.

 

[rdowdall]

Except the entire philosophy is different now even AFTER we sign Stamkos if he comes available.  How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons?  Nothing is abandoned.

Acceleration perhaps, but without shortcutting this time around.

How is the entire philosophy different after signing Stamkos?  How is win now different than win now?  So they sign Stamkos and then put him in the press box? 

The overall issue is the "win now" mentality.  When you are trying to build a team to win now, your choices are different than when you are trying to build a team to win in two years, or three years or four years.  You can't do both.  When you are trying to win now you have to have the assets in place so that you don't sacrifice the key pieces that are on your roster in order to make up for your deficiencies. 

The Leafs have some nice pieces for sure, but they don't have enough nice pieces that they can field a competitive team at the NHL level and still have enough left over to make the trades that they will need to make to flush out the areas that are lacking.  You don't get those pieces from one draft.  You get those pieces from multiple drafts, with more than your fair share of picks.  The Leafs have done that once, and that was last year.

 

[Kin]

By the by, Matthews' NHLe, far from being 70+ points is actually 42. Which, all things considered, isn't all that bad. Stamkos scored 46 points as a rookie, Tavares 54, Seguin 22.

That's the thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Marner/Nylander/Matthews can all be phenomenal NHL prospects who go on to phenomenal NHL careers...but there's a very good chance that none of them make a huge impact next year. What Kane and Toews did as rookies is far from normal/average even among incredible NHL prospects.

 

[TBLeafer]

Except the entire philosophy is different now even AFTER we sign Stamkos if he comes available.  How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons?  Nothing is abandoned.

Acceleration perhaps, but without shortcutting this time around.

How is the entire philosophy different after signing Stamkos?  How is win now different than win now?  So they sign Stamkos and then put him in the press box? 

The overall issue is the "win now" mentality.  When you are trying to build a team to win now, your choices are different than when you are trying to build a team to win in two years, or three years or four years.  You can't do both.  When you are trying to win now you have to have the assets in place so that you don't sacrifice the key pieces that are on your roster in order to make up for your deficiencies. 

The Leafs have some nice pieces for sure, but they don't have enough nice pieces that they can field a competitive team at the NHL level and still have enough left over to make the trades that they will need to make to flush out the areas that are lacking.  You don't get those pieces from one draft.  You get those pieces from multiple drafts, with more than your fair share of picks.  The Leafs have done that once, and that was last year.

Because I think you're confusing "win now" with "improve now".

"Win now" means you become buyers in a trade market.

Signing UFA's means you are coming about players naturally if you can fit them under cap without discarding any players you already have and want to keep as part of your future team.

 

[bustaheims]

By the by, Matthews' NHLe, far from being 70+ points is actually 42. Which, all things considered, isn't all that bad. Stamkos scored 46 points as a rookie, Tavares 54, Seguin 22.

That's the thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Marner/Nylander/Matthews can all be phenomenal NHL prospects who go on to phenomenal NHL careers...but there's a very good chance that none of them make a huge impact next year. What Kane and Toews did as rookies is far from normal/average even among incredible NHL prospects.

Yeah. 50+ points is usually more than enough to get a player serious consideration for the Calder. 60+ points, in most seasons, is good enough to win it. A 40-45 point rookie season is excellent for any player who isn't a generational talent type.

 

[TBLeafer]

By the by, Matthews' NHLe, far from being 70+ points is actually 42. Which, all things considered, isn't all that bad. Stamkos scored 46 points as a rookie, Tavares 54, Seguin 22.

That's the thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Marner/Nylander/Matthews can all be phenomenal NHL prospects who go on to phenomenal NHL careers...but there's a very good chance that none of them make a huge impact next year. What Kane and Toews did as rookies is far from normal/average even among incredible NHL prospects.

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

Maybe our D isn't as bad as we make it out to be and we just added Zaitsev and Carrick probably makes roster.

 

[TBLeafer]

 

[bustaheims]

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?

No, because you're not factoring in the production of the players they're replacing in the lineup. Right now, they'd represent a small increase, but, depending on the moves the team makes this summer, they could, in fact, not move the needle at all.

 

[rdowdall]

Except the entire philosophy is different now even AFTER we sign Stamkos if he comes available.  How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons?  Nothing is abandoned.

Acceleration perhaps, but without shortcutting this time around.

How is the entire philosophy different after signing Stamkos?  How is win now different than win now?  So they sign Stamkos and then put him in the press box? 

The overall issue is the "win now" mentality.  When you are trying to build a team to win now, your choices are different than when you are trying to build a team to win in two years, or three years or four years.  You can't do both.  When you are trying to win now you have to have the assets in place so that you don't sacrifice the key pieces that are on your roster in order to make up for your deficiencies. 

The Leafs have some nice pieces for sure, but they don't have enough nice pieces that they can field a competitive team at the NHL level and still have enough left over to make the trades that they will need to make to flush out the areas that are lacking.  You don't get those pieces from one draft.  You get those pieces from multiple drafts, with more than your fair share of picks.  The Leafs have done that once, and that was last year.

Because I think you're confusing "win now" with "improve now".

"Win now" means you become buyers in a trade market.

Signing UFA's means you are coming about players naturally if you can fit them under cap without discarding any players you already have and want to keep as part of your future team.

Win now means that you are going to field a roster that is attempting to win more games than it loses.  The Leafs can play all of their rookies next year, and they will still probably lose more games than they win.  Putting Stamkos on that roster means that they will win more than they lose, which will handicap their ability to improve through the draft.

 

[TBLeafer]

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?

No, because you're not factoring in the production of the players they're replacing in the lineup. Right now, they'd represent a small increase, but, depending on the moves the team makes this summer, they could, in fact, not move the needle at all.

You mean just like the year after Chicago won 1st overall as a bottom five team in the league, drafted Kane and continued to suck the following year?  :

 

[Redleaf]

By the by, Matthews' NHLe, far from being 70+ points is actually 42. Which, all things considered, isn't all that bad. Stamkos scored 46 points as a rookie, Tavares 54, Seguin 22.

That's the thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Marner/Nylander/Matthews can all be phenomenal NHL prospects who go on to phenomenal NHL careers...but there's a very good chance that none of them make a huge impact next year. What Kane and Toews did as rookies is far from normal/average even among incredible NHL prospects.

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

Maybe our D isn't as bad as we make it out to be and we just added Zaitsev and Carrick probably makes roster.

I don't think It will surprise anyone here when I say I'm siding with you on this issue.

1st of all, you are right in that this team as it stands now, without Stamkos, isn't a bottom 5 team next season. There were too many obvious manoeuvres in the roster at the end of last season to try and get the best lottery odds. And I'm not talking about just veteran players being curiously removed from the lineup. The rookies were just too good to finish dead last was the message I got from it. I can see a fairly substantial improvement coming next season, with or without Stamkos in the fold.

The addition of Stamkos only marginally effects where the go next year. The additions of Matthews, Marner and a full season of Nylander will do more than anything else to increase their odds of making improvements in the standings.

Secondly, I think there are more signs pointing to Stamkos coming than not. I don't have time to list all the telltale signs I've picked up on, but I believe it's already a done deal.

 

[TBLeafer]

Except the entire philosophy is different now even AFTER we sign Stamkos if he comes available.  How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons?  Nothing is abandoned.

Acceleration perhaps, but without shortcutting this time around.

How is the entire philosophy different after signing Stamkos?  How is win now different than win now?  So they sign Stamkos and then put him in the press box? 

The overall issue is the "win now" mentality.  When you are trying to build a team to win now, your choices are different than when you are trying to build a team to win in two years, or three years or four years.  You can't do both.  When you are trying to win now you have to have the assets in place so that you don't sacrifice the key pieces that are on your roster in order to make up for your deficiencies. 

The Leafs have some nice pieces for sure, but they don't have enough nice pieces that they can field a competitive team at the NHL level and still have enough left over to make the trades that they will need to make to flush out the areas that are lacking.  You don't get those pieces from one draft.  You get those pieces from multiple drafts, with more than your fair share of picks.  The Leafs have done that once, and that was last year.

Because I think you're confusing "win now" with "improve now".

"Win now" means you become buyers in a trade market.

Signing UFA's means you are coming about players naturally if you can fit them under cap without discarding any players you already have and want to keep as part of your future team.

Win now means that you are going to field a roster that is attempting to win more games than it loses.  The Leafs can play all of their rookies next year, and they will still probably lose more games than they win.  Putting Stamkos on that roster means that they will win more than they lose, which will handicap their ability to improve through the draft.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Leafs are going to attempt to do that without Stamkos, anyway.

 

[rdowdall]

By the by, Matthews' NHLe, far from being 70+ points is actually 42. Which, all things considered, isn't all that bad. Stamkos scored 46 points as a rookie, Tavares 54, Seguin 22.

That's the thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Marner/Nylander/Matthews can all be phenomenal NHL prospects who go on to phenomenal NHL careers...but there's a very good chance that none of them make a huge impact next year. What Kane and Toews did as rookies is far from normal/average even among incredible NHL prospects.

Yeah. 50+ points is usually more than enough to get a player serious consideration for the Calder. 60+ points, in most seasons, is good enough to win it. A 40-45 point rookie season is excellent for any player who isn't a generational talent type.

I think that if you asked Dave Tallon if he thought he would see that kind of improvement in his team based on that roster, he would probably tell you that he was a little surprised by it.  It's probably why he waited another year before doing additions just so that he could gauge what the team would be like the following year.  Once they made the playoffs in that second year I think he knew what he had.