What are the playoffs teaching us?

[Hampreacher]

Other than a shaky first game which I expected the major difference in the series is one word, experience. Thr bruins have used their experience and scored when the opportunities have arisen. Leafs could easily be up 3 games to one or tied given experience and confidence. Add  couple of key players and experience and next year will be difference. I do not believe series will be over on Friday. Trading Phaneuf is not a way to acquire them.

 

[93forever]

Leafs make way too many mistakes and have a hard time clearing the puck.  Defence and centre needs upgrades. 

 

[riff raff]

I don't know if I'm quite so optimistic about Reimer going forward. I know he's the reason we got to the playoffs and that he's capable of getting into 'a zone'. (I admit I was hoping he might get into 'a zone' during the playoffs and steal a game or two.) But if you look at the goals the Bruins have scored in the series, the majority would be classified as 'stoppable', including the winner last night.

Is this something that will improve with experience? Or is this as good as it gets?

 

[sneakyray]

this playoff has shown us that Bozak and kadri are not worth anything close to 5mil per year.

 

[93forever]

I don't know if I'm quite so optimistic about Reimer going forward. I know he's the reason we got to the playoffs and that he's capable of getting into 'a zone'. (I admit I was hoping he might get into 'a zone' during the playoffs and steal a game or two.) But if you look at the goals the Bruins have scored in the series, the majority would be classified as 'stoppable', including the winner last night.

Is this something that will improve with experience? Or is this as good as it gets?

The defensive liabilities on the team may be distracting to Reimer.  He did make some unbelievable saves during the season and in the playoffs.  Tighten up the defence, reduce the turnovers will allow Reimer to focus on his job.

 

[Courtnall]

We need a solid 1c. Also 2 defensively sound D men. Someone has to be moved down the middle. I believe bozak could be an excellent 3rd liner. Either Kadri or grabovski should play 2c while the other gets moved. Trade phaneuf perhaps in a package for a #1, he's got the tools to be good but his decision making is terrible. Then sign or trade a rock and a good 3rd pairing D.
Gardiner-?
Franson-gunnerson
Fraser-?

 

[mr grieves]

We need a solid 1c. Also 2 defensively sound D men. Someone has to be moved down the middle. I believe bozak could be an excellent 3rd liner. Either Kadri or grabovski should play 2c while the other gets moved.

Grabbo's had two seasons in the top 30 for P/60m, despite not playing with the team's top wingers. And that's compared to guys listed as centers but who often play the wing. This year, even figuring in the misuse (defensively responsible offensive center does not make a defensive specialist), he had an off year. But I think there's a better chance for Grabbo to turn into an bonafide #1C than Bozak becoming a useful #3C. And I think the chances of Bozak signing to be a #3C are even worse than the chances that he'll become a legit #1 or even #2.

Grabbo can take faceoffs, is defensively responsible, and can hang with any combo of our top wingers (JVR, Kessel, Lupul). They've signed him as a top-line center, and, unless he lights it up like one, they'd be trading him for a loss. Kessel's strength + JVR or Lupul's production and good deals mean we should be able to get by in the 1C slot with a marginal 1C (that 1B or 2A). Who wants to pay another $7.5m on the top line?

I think Kadri's an excellent 2C, and maybe toward the end of Grabbo's contract he'll have emerged as legit #1.

I think the team's weakness at C is that we don't have a $3m third-line center who can take faceoffs and stay on the ice without bad things happening. McClement hasn't inspired confidence this playoffs and looks like he should stay a PK/faceoff specialist with limited 5on5 exposure.

Trade phaneuf perhaps in a package for a #1, he's got the tools to be good but his decision making is terrible. Then sign or trade a rock and a good 3rd pairing D.
Gardiner-?
Franson-gunnerson
Fraser-?

I don't see how Grabovski/Kadri + Phaneuf gets both a real #1 and a Dman better than Phaneuf. And since settling for one or the other is a step back, I think they should better deploy what they've got.

Complementing Phaneuf with someone else who can play 25min a night but who doesn't get reckless would be ideal. That could probably be got by dealing one of Franson or Gardiner +... though, loving the offensively gifted dmen, I'd not like to lose either of them. Those two together on the PP could be promising, and I think cutting Phaneuf's PP time would limit his fatigue/ bad ideas. But I doubt either would be willing to be paid as a 3rd pairing PP specialist, and I worry neither is actually a top-pairing defenseman, especially if we're stuck with Phaneuf. And we are.

 

[drummond]

this playoff has shown us that Bozak and kadri are not worth anything close to 5mil per year.

Grabbo included

 

[Optimus Reimer]

Keepers - Gunner, Gardiner, Fraser, Franson
??? - Phaneuf
Gone - Liles

If Leafs can acquire 2 decent d-men without giving up a d-man, that would make Phaneuf expendable.  Even though Phaneuf plays top minutes, how can we honestly say he is a top pairing d-man considering the mistakes he makes that costs the team goals and wins?  If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

 

[Deebo]

If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

Yes.

 

[bustaheims]

If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

Yes.

This. He's a 1st pairing guy, regardless of his captaincy. He's just not the elite #1 stud dman some people were hoping he'd be after his first couple seasons in the league.

 

[ZBBM]

If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

Yes.

This. He's a 1st pairing guy, regardless of his captaincy. He's just not the elite #1 stud dman some people were hoping he'd be after his first couple seasons in the league.

I don't agree.  I think on a contender he'd be slotted as #3 with second-tier minutes.  He's a good d-man, very good in some ways, but too many flaws to be a top-pairing guy on a team that styles itself a challenger for the Cup.  His lack of hockey sense is enough to keep him out of the 1/2 position.

 

[Kin]

If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

The board has kicked this around before and I really think it's an answerless question. On the Leafs, of course, he is but that's really more of a testament to how weak they are 1-6 than it is a vote of confidence for Phaneuf. Putting aside the issue of who else is on the team that really determines top pairing position what I keep coming back to are two separate questions. "Is he a complete enough player to be a #1?" and "Would he be a good compliment to someone who is?". For me, both answers are no.

It's a weird comparison, I know, but I've sort of come to think of Phaneuf as an NBA fan might have thought of Gilbert Arenas or Clyde Drexler. You'd have never said that Arenas or Drexler couldn't produce as a #1 scoring option because, clearly, they could. At the same time, though, it was pretty obvious that your team wouldn't be winning much if they were in that role because of how they compared to the guys who really excelled.

 

[93forever]

Keepers - Gunner, Gardiner, Fraser, Franson
??? - Phaneuf
Gone - Liles

If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

Give Fraser/Gardiner a bit of time.  I could see those 2 as the top pair.

 

[skrackle]

I've learned that Grapes keeps it in check for 'Coach's Corner'.

After that? Keep 'em coming!

 

[Kessel Run]

Keepers - Gunner, Gardiner, Fraser, Franson
??? - Phaneuf
Gone - Liles

If he was not the captain of the team, would he still be a top pairing d-man?

Give Fraser/Gardiner a bit of time.  I could see those 2 as the top pair.

Fraser as a 1/2 D!? 

I like him, but he just isn't that.

 

[riff raff]

I'm learning that I may not have the cardiac resilience necessary for this.

 

[ZBBM]

"Is he a complete enough player to be a #1?" and "Would he be a good compliment to someone who is?". For me, both answers are no.

That's right on the money.  Too good for the second pairing, but not a real fit either as the clear #1 or the complementary guy on the first pairing.

He looked like he was skating in sand in the 3rd tonight.  He definitely gets in trouble when he logs big minutes.

 

[mr grieves]

"Is he a complete enough player to be a #1?" and "Would he be a good compliment to someone who is?". For me, both answers are no.

That's right on the money.  Too good for the second pairing, but not a real fit either as the clear #1 or the complementary guy on the first pairing.

He looked like he was skating in sand in the 3rd tonight.  He definitely gets in trouble when he logs big minutes.

I don't disagree with any of this, though I think Phaneuf's passable if his minutes are limited by a balanced defense corps (20-25m/night), and, if he's not the fully-rounded stud we'd all like, we've other options for a few places where he isn't ideal (on the PP, say).

But if he's neither a true #1 nor a decent complement to an actual #1, what should be done with him? And what chance of a true #1 with the assets the team would be willing to part with? 

 

[AtomicMapleLeaf]

Full disclosure:  I haven't read any of the previous posts.

What are the playoffs teaching us? 

Well, I drink more when the Leafs are in the playoffs.