What to do with JVR

[Kin]

I think there's value in playoff experience, but yes, probably shouldn't overvalue anything. I look at young Pittsburgh and Chicago teams in the last 10 years who had some playoff success before winning their first cup. I guess that's what I'd want the Leafs to emulate.

That's a correlation, not causation. The Kings didn't have any playoff success before winning their cup and on the opposite side of the spectrum the Capitals have won lots of playoff rounds without steadily marching upwards.

Young teams with a lot of talent gradually improve. That typically means they'll make the playoffs before they put it all together and win a cup.

Remember, you didn't say "it's important that the Leafs make the playoffs this year" but rather that the experience of playoff success will make a cup more likely in the future.

 

[dappleganger]

That's a correlation, not causation. The Kings didn't have any playoff success before winning their cup and on the opposite side of the spectrum the Capitals have won lots of playoff rounds without steadily marching upwards.

Young teams with a lot of talent gradually improve. That typically means they'll make the playoffs before they put it all together and win a cup.

Remember, you didn't say "it's important that the Leafs make the playoffs this year" but rather that the experience of playoff success will make a cup more likely in the future.

It's simple math Nik. Making it to the conference finals or farther exponentially increases a teams chance of securing a cup than not making it past the 2nd round.

 

[disco]

Going deep into this year's playoffs will be huge for the development of this team. That shouldn't be undervalued.

It also shouldn't be overvalued. Or valued, really. It's an oft-repeated contention but I don't think there's enough evidence behind it to drive decision making to a significant degree. 

Although, again, trading JVR doesn't mean you can't also add pieces.

I think there's value in playoff experience, but yes, probably shouldn't overvalue anything. I look at young Pittsburgh and Chicago teams in the last 10 years who had some playoff success before winning their first cup. I guess that's what I'd want the Leafs to emulate.


Here's the last 10 Stanley Cup winners and how they fared the year before winning the cup:

2016: Pittsburgh - Previous Season: Stanley Cup winner.

2015: Pittsburgh - Previous Season: 1st Round.

2014: Chicago - Previous Season: Conference Finals.

2013: Los Angeles - Previous Season: Conference Finals.

2012: Chicago - Previous Season: 1st Round.

2011: Los Angeles - Previous Season: 1st Round.

2010: Boston - Previous Season: 2nd Round.

2009: Chicago - Previous Season: Conference Finals.

2008: Pittsburgh - Stanley Cup Finals.

2007: Detroit - Conference Finals.

2006: Anaheim - Conference Finals.


The last team to miss the playoffs and win the cup were the 2005 Carolina Hurricanes, coming off the lockout year.

I agree, there is definite value in playing games in the post-season for a YOUNG club on the RISE. The caliber of competition increases, time and space decreases... all of which hardens one mentally and physically for both the next season and the future playoff runs. You're playing against the best, and everyone is going full-tilt every shift. However, the value of the playoffs for a middling team constantly on the bubble, in and out of the first round, is negligible.

 

[Kin]

It's simple math Nik. Making it to the conference finals or farther exponentially increases a teams chance of securing a cup than not making it past the 2nd round.

I freely admit that math was never my best subject but even I know that's not true(and also, that's not how exponents work).

 

[dappleganger]

It's simple math Nik. Making it to the conference finals or farther exponentially increases a teams chance of securing a cup than not making it past the 2nd round.

I freely admit that math was never my best subject but even I know that's not true(and also, that's not how exponents work).

Sorry for the confusion, Nik. Check out definition 1. I was using the word in the superlative sense.

ex?po?nen?tial?ly
ˌekspəˈnen(t)SHəlē/Submit
adverb

1.(with reference to an increase) more and more rapidly.
"our business has been growing exponentially"

2.MATHEMATICS
by means of or as expressed by a mathematical exponent.
"values distributed exponentially according to a given time constant"

I gave reasons for my opinion on why keeping JVR might be worth it even though he could walk next year for nothing. None of this is conclusive.

I'd keep JVR unless he's part of a deal to bring in a number 1 d-man, which would be unlikely.

 

[KadriFan]

I don't think they will be trading for any top dman.  How will they pay one.  They're gonna be broke after the triplets get their contracts.  More likely he will go for pick or maybe a young center prospect.  Of course one of their young Left wingers Will fave to take his spot away from him first or nothing happens

 

[Zee]

The cap hits of JVR + Bozak + Komarov add up to  $11.4 million. I think 2 of those 3 aren't on the Leafs next season. They can find a way to make the numbers work by plugging in younger players on cheap contracts.

 

[AvroArrow]

I'd keep JVR unless he's part of a deal to bring in a number 1 d-man, which would be unlikely.

I'd trade him for a good top 4 dman.  I still think JvR for Vatanen still makes sense for the basis of a deal.

 

[dappleganger]

I'd keep JVR unless he's part of a deal to bring in a number 1 d-man, which would be unlikely.

I'd trade him for a good top 4 dman.  I still think JvR for Vatanen still makes sense for the basis of a deal.

JVR would be a great fit on Anaheim.

 

[KadriFan]

The cap hits of JVR + Bozak + Komarov add up to  $11.4 million. I think 2 of those 3 aren't on the Leafs next season. They can find a way to make the numbers work by plugging in younger players on cheap contracts.

I doubt that will cover Matthews deal.  Plus they have the other two plus replacements plus Gardner in the not to distant future. 

 

[princedpw]

I'd keep JVR unless he's part of a deal to bring in a number 1 d-man, which would be unlikely.

I'd trade him for a good top 4 dman.  I still think JvR for Vatanen still makes sense for the basis of a deal.

What about Josh Manson?  When Anaheim's other defenders get back from the IR.  We need the guy who can kill penalties, clear the zone, and deny zone entries more than the offensive player.  Of course the difference status (UFA vs under contract makes a huge difference.

 

[Kin]

I gave reasons for my opinion on why keeping JVR might be worth it even though he could walk next year for nothing. None of this is conclusive.

Right. It's not math, simple or otherwise.

But, again, your opinion seems based on the false dichotomy that the Leafs, by trading JVR, will necessary have a worse team for the playoffs than they do now and so trading him will automatically assume a worse chance of success in this year's playoffs.

Even ignoring my point about the hard to pin down value of experience or what I've said about there not necessarily being a causal relationship between prior playoff success and a cup...that's still not true.

 

[dappleganger]

I gave reasons for my opinion on why keeping JVR might be worth it even though he could walk next year for nothing. None of this is conclusive.

Right. It's not math, simple or otherwise.

But, again, your opinion seems based on the false dichotomy that the Leafs, by trading JVR, will necessary have a worse team for the playoffs than they do now and so trading him will automatically assume a worse chance of success in this year's playoffs.

Even ignoring my point about the hard to pin down value of experience or what I've said about there not necessarily being a causal relationship between prior playoff success and a cup...that's still not true.

7 of the last 11 Stanley Cups were secured by teams who at least made it to the Conference Finals in the previous season.

4 of the last 11 Stanley Cups were secured by teams who made the playoffs but didn't make it past the 2nd round in the previous season.

4 is less than 7. Simple math.

I do think the Leafs are better with JVR than without, hence the dilemma.

 

[rdowdall]

I do think the Leafs are better with JVR than without, hence the dilemma.

I don't think that's a statement that can made without knowing what is coming back for JVR.  You said in another post that JVR would do well in Anahiem.  If the deal was JVR for Vatanen, then on paper it would seem that they would actually get stronger.

 

[dappleganger]

I do think the Leafs are better with JVR than without, hence the dilemma.

I don't think that's a statement that can made without knowing what is coming back for JVR.  You said in another post that JVR would do well in Anahiem.  If the deal was JVR for Vatanen, then on paper it would seem that they would actually get stronger.

I did say in an earlier post that I would trade JVR for an upgrade on defence, but I just think that it is unlikely.

 

[Kin]

7 of the last 11 Stanley Cups were secured by teams who at least made it to the Conference Finals in the previous season.

4 of the last 11 Stanley Cups were secured by teams who made the playoffs but didn't make it past the 2nd round in the previous season.

4 is less than 7. Simple math.

5 of the last 11 Cups were won by teams with Red as their primary jersey colour.

0 of the last 11 Stanley Cup winners did so with Blue as their primary colour.

5 is greater than 0. Therefore the Leafs cannot win the Stanley Cup with blue uniforms. Similarly simple math, similar complete absence of logic.

Correlation is not Causation.

I do think the Leafs are better with JVR than without, hence the dilemma.

What the Leafs are without JVR depends on what else they have in their lineup. The dilemma is you not acknowledging that.

 

[rdowdall]

I do think the Leafs are better with JVR than without, hence the dilemma.

I don't think that's a statement that can made without knowing what is coming back for JVR.  You said in another post that JVR would do well in Anahiem.  If the deal was JVR for Vatanen, then on paper it would seem that they would actually get stronger.

I did say in an earlier post that I would trade JVR for an upgrade on defence, but I just think that it is unlikely.

Trading JVR earlier than this year may have yielded a d-man.  His price seems to be dropping.  He may walk away for nothing at the end of the year, which in that case means the Leafs get worse next, and get nothing for him.  If they move him for picks, even if they get worse for the time being which is debatable, at least they can recoup some of that in potentially future pieces. 

 

[AvroArrow]

What about Josh Manson?  When Anaheim's other defenders get back from the IR.  We need the guy who can kill penalties, clear the zone, and deny zone entries more than the offensive player.  Of course the difference status (UFA vs under contract makes a huge difference.

Would love him but I suspect Anaheim wants him for the same reasons.  With all their offensive guys, they likely also want that kind of presence.

 

[sickbeast]

The Leafs are in a great position with JVR.  It reminds me of the Blue Jays with Donaldson.  They can simply wait until the trade deadline and see where they're at.  If they're a playoff team, keep him.  If they're not, trade him for picks and prospects.  It's that simple.  While the Leafs are flush with skilled forwards, JVR is a big guy to lose, even if they can parlay him into a decent defenseman.

 

[mr grieves]

I do think the Leafs are better with JVR than without, hence the dilemma.

What the Leafs are without JVR depends on what else they have in their lineup. The dilemma is you not acknowledging that.

Yeah, Dap thinks they're better with him than without, but hasn't explained how that works. If you drop Marleau, Leivo, Kapanen, Johnsson onto a line with Marner, the team's probably scoring fewer goals, has a less potent PP (so that unit plays less), but isn't giving up as much 5v5.