OT: Leafs/NHL Thread

[bballsparkin]

What does it say about the NHL that Vegas and Seattle can have instant success as expansion teams. Parity, good CBA I guess, but somehow to me it makes the league look Mickey Mouse too

It shows that a Hard Cap is lousy. Perfect for a League focused on it's fringe fans.

[GQStylin]

While the score might be close, watching the game, it seemed like Florida and Toronto where on two different planets. Florida could pretty much do what they wanted. Same with Tampa. They just didn't have much luck against the Leafs (plus their D were all injured). While Toronto won the series, they only scored 2 more goals than Tampa.

I guess we have vastly different views on the Florida/Toronto series. I watched all the games and I never felt the Leafs being grossly outplayed in any of those games. They had good if not great scoring chances in most of those games and they were able to get into the Panther's zone and stay there easier than when they played Tampa. The difference in that series was Florida being more clutch, Bob playing great and coming up with timely saves and the Leafs making a few more mistakes than Florida did.

In the Tampa series in most games it seemed like the Lightning were outplaying the Leafs in most periods and it was hard for the Leafs to generate any offense and get decent shots on Vasi. The thing is they took advantage of what few chances they got and that was the difference between winning and losing to Tampa.

Look at the Canes/Florida series now. Watched every game so far and again I don't feel the Panthers are hugely outplaying the Canes and yet now they're up 3-0 against them because of 2 clutch overtime wins and the Panthers and Bob playing well and clutching out a 1-0 game. Sometimes you can have two teams playing pretty evenly and its just that one team wins by making a few less mistakes and/or being abit more clutch/lucky than the other team.

When a team has lost as much as the Leafs in the 1st round, eventually it is not about luck and more about the team.

Well for the Leafs I think some playoff series losses were them being outplayed, but definitely some of those other playoff series they were simply unlucky. 3 losses against the Panthers in OT is what I would call unlucky just as 3 OT wins against Tampa was luck going in favor of the Leafs.

Marner doesn't have a great shot, like a Nylander or Matthews. And since he is not as willing to go into the slot and take a beating to score (gritty goals), he is really not a player the Leafs can trust to score a big goal. At almost $11M, he needs to be a player they can trust to make the big play. And if that is just as him as a playmaker, then he needs a quality finisher beside him. Why pay two players, when you can pay just one. Focus the money on the players that have the most impact.

Marner has a decent shot and great moves. We've seen him score in close at the net so its not like he can't do it. Different players score in different ways and for a team to be successful you need to be able to score in a variety of different ways. Marner doesn't need to be the primary score when he's the primary playmaker. Again different players have different roles on the team and Marner is the guy who drives the play and sets up the shooter. If you can't get the puck to the shooter than the shooter isn't going to score.

Look at Brett Hull and Adam Oates one of the great all time duels in the NHL when they were playing together in St. Louis. Hull has his three best seasons of scoring when the two played together with 72, 86 and 70 goal seasons and when Oates was traded, Hull never reached those same heights again and he never scored more than 57 goals for the rest of his time in the NHL. Coincidence? Perhaps. Or maybe a great playmaker compliments a great goal scorer and vise versa.

Again, Matthews I think as way more value on the market, and could draw significant interest, in terms of young players/prospects and draft picks. Any team interested in signing him would probably like to have him for the year to try and convince him to sign.

Marner, it would all depend on what is offered. He is not worth just dumping. But if some team was willing to offer some talent back, I would move him. He is not worth $11M. Not on a Stanley Cup contender. So come contract time, if he is not willing to take a big paycut (down to ~$8M), I think they would have to let him walk.

I'd prefer to trade Matthews while his value is high. If he's asking for a major pay raise, definitely trade him before July 1st. Marner I would evaulate him for another season and then see how he does and what he's asking for on his next contract. I think its crazy to think he'll take a major pay cut and more realisticly if he only asks for a slight pay raise then maybe its worth keeping him and if he's asking for a major raise then move him out. With Tavares' contract ending at the same time at least the Leafs will have the cap space to re-sign Nylander and Marner and hopefully bring back Tavares at a steep discount if he wants to stay and still have some space left over.

[ATLTimekeeper]

What does it say about the NHL that Vegas and Seattle can have instant success as expansion teams. Parity, good CBA I guess, but somehow to me it makes the league look Mickey Mouse too

It shows that a Hard Cap is lousy. Perfect for a League focused on it's fringe fans.

Nah, it puts pressure on every team to make better decisions. The Leafs handed the Kraken one of their best players just to protect two very mediocre players. The hard cap just exposes the decision-makers, whereas a soft cap allows bad choices to be papered over.

[Ranger One]

Bob having one of the greatest Playoff performances in Hockey History. Pretty wild. Looking back the Leafs really had no chance whatsoever against Florida huh? In retrospect its impressive we were able to take one game from them. With Florida having such a magical, destiny inspired run, it might actually have been better for us to face Boston huh? Florida is EASILY winning the Cup this year. They gonna sweep the Canes and probably sweep whoever they face in the Cup Finals as well. Think about it, it took Boston, who had a historic season of their own, a full 7 games to try and take out Florida and they couldnt do it. If Boston couldnt beat them, no one else is.

[xAIRNESSx]

Panthers have caught lightning in a bottle. Tkachuk with his 3rd game winner in the 4 game sweep against Carolina. Just insane.

[blastttOFF]

Always thought we should’ve drafted tkachuk instead of matthews.

[bballsparkin]

Always thought we should’ve drafted tkachuk instead of matthews.

If it makes you feel better the Canucks drafted 4 positions later then Mathews and one spot before Tkachuck was taken for a player that is no longer on the team and has struggled. I don't mind though. I'd rather keep Tkachuck as a villain.

[bballsparkin]

Nah, it puts pressure on every team to make better decisions. The Leafs handed the Kraken one of their best players just to protect two very mediocre players. The hard cap just exposes the decision-makers, whereas a soft cap allows bad choices to be papered over.

It's not the same when a team is building from fresh like the Kraken or Vegas. They can look holistically and capitalize on teams being squeezed. A player like Hyman shouldn't be lost because of a hard cap imo. It's used to build up teams in fringe markets. Which makes the league money. As do these lucrative expansion teams. So it makes sense financially I guess.

That was a bad move by the Leafs though. No disagreement there.

[Los_29]

Leafs lost to another team that ends up going to the cup. Boston, Montreal, Tampa Bay and Florida.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Nah, it puts pressure on every team to make better decisions. The Leafs handed the Kraken one of their best players just to protect two very mediocre players. The hard cap just exposes the decision-makers, whereas a soft cap allows bad choices to be papered over.

It's not the same when a team is building from fresh like the Kraken or Vegas. They can look holistically and capitalize on teams being squeezed. A player like Hyman shouldn't be lost because of a hard cap imo. It's used to build up teams in fringe markets. Which makes the league money. As do these lucrative expansion teams. So it makes sense financially I guess.

That was a bad move by the Leafs though. No disagreement there.

I think that says more about the Leafs own poor bargaining under Dubas. Edmonton poached Hyman (who will be a bad contract eventually) to support a core that had been drafted at the same time or before the Leafs main players. McDavid makes just a shade more than Marner. Draisaitl a million and a half more than Nylander. This is to re-sign in Edmonton. The hard cap emphasizes the importance of contract negotiation, and increases the importance of a development system.

[JB7]

Leafs lost to another team that ends up going to the cup. Boston, Montreal, Tampa Bay and Florida.

Boston and Carolina also lost to Florida, and I think either of those teams would have destroyed the Leafs, as Florida did.

People need to stop with the Leafs got beat by the Cup winner. The Cup winner beats 4 teams on the way to the Cup. The Leafs just happen to be one of them. And they are probably the easiest opponent to play onto the Cup. The Leafs don't extract much physically from teams on the way for their Cup run, so they are a good opponent to have.

[JB7]

Marner doesn't have a great shot, like a Nylander or Matthews. And since he is not as willing to go into the slot and take a beating to score (gritty goals), he is really not a player the Leafs can trust to score a big goal. At almost $11M, he needs to be a player they can trust to make the big play. And if that is just as him as a playmaker, then he needs a quality finisher beside him. Why pay two players, when you can pay just one. Focus the money on the players that have the most impact.
Marner has a decent shot and great moves. We've seen him score in close at the net so its not like he can't do it. Different players score in different ways and for a team to be successful you need to be able to score in a variety of different ways. Marner doesn't need to be the primary score when he's the primary playmaker. Again different players have different roles on the team and Marner is the guy who drives the play and sets up the shooter. If you can't get the puck to the shooter than the shooter isn't going to score.

Look at Brett Hull and Adam Oates one of the great all time duels in the NHL when they were playing together in St. Louis. Hull has his three best seasons of scoring when the two played together with 72, 86 and 70 goal seasons and when Oates was traded, Hull never reached those same heights again and he never scored more than 57 goals for the rest of his time in the NHL. Coincidence? Perhaps. Or maybe a great playmaker compliments a great goal scorer and vise versa.

I agree that Hull and Oates complimented each other perfectly, but if you were only able to hold onto one of them because of salary constraints, who would it be?

I'd prefer to trade Matthews while his value is high. If he's asking for a major pay raise, definitely trade him before July 1st. Marner I would evaluate him for another season and then see how he does and what he's asking for on his next contract. I think its crazy to think he'll take a major pay cut and more realistically if he only asks for a slight pay raise then maybe its worth keeping him and if he's asking for a major raise then move him out. With Tavares' contract ending at the same time at least the Leafs will have the cap space to re-sign Nylander and Marner and hopefully bring back Tavares at a steep discount if he wants to stay and still have some space left over.

I think the Leaf's future success (or lack thereof) will come down again to Marner's contract. If they overpay Marner again (and continuing to pay him $11M is an overpay), they will not have success. He has not proven to be a difference maker. He can generate points in low pressure situations, but cannot produce at critical moments. And a player getting paid that much needs to produce at critical moments for the team to have success. As a point of comparison. Look what Matthew Tkachuk is doing for the Panthers, and he is signed for $9.5M for 7 more years (through his prime playing years 25-32).

[youreachiteach]

The Florida power forwards are winning the cup. They basically have every single heavy power forward/centre in the entire league, half of which could have been had for a song two or three years ago. Unfortunately, they are no longer available and I don't see many players the Leafs could get to match up, unless they want to trade marner for a defenceman and not a forward.

[bballsparkin]

I think that says more about the Leafs own poor bargaining under Dubas. Edmonton poached Hyman (who will be a bad contract eventually) to support a core that had been drafted at the same time or before the Leafs main players. McDavid makes just a shade more than Marner. Draisaitl a million and a half more than Nylander. This is to re-sign in Edmonton. The hard cap emphasizes the importance of contract negotiation, and increases the importance of a development system.

The problem with Hyman's contract is the term. He seems to be a $5.5M player in this NHL environment. He scored 36 goals and had 83 points. Since joining the Oilers he has 27 points in 28 playoff games. He is currently a 30 year old so we shall see how his contract looks in 2027/28. I would be in favour of reducing the maximum years contracts can be given.

Agents seem to know the numbers they expect. I thought Horvat could be a Canuck for life. Their former GM completely screwed the cap up like only a throw back like Jim could. I don't blame new management in Vancouver for balking at the price tag. As a recently turned 28 year he is paid $8.5M till 2030/31. That's nuts. Yet it was the price. Even Lou Lamoriello conceded and paid. When asked how he felt Lamoriello replied, "too much money for too long". Correct. Yet the reality.

Blackhawks are doing it right. Nice to have an owner willing to take a loss for the big picture. It's rumoured that they may consolidate later picks and cap space to move up and trade for Vancouver's #11. Something like #11 for #19 and cap space. Hopefully a second thrown in. Nice to be a Blackhawks fan they did it right this year.

McDavid took less. That dictates the tone on a team when a truly generational talent does that.

[WaltFrazier]

Is Treliving a good hire?

[2019nbachamps]

Is Treliving a good hire?

Seems strange. He hasn’t don’t anything before

[Dr Positivity]

Penguins hire Dubas
Blue Jackets hire Babcock

[ATLTimekeeper]

All the radio guys here were talking about Dubas to Pittsburgh through the playoffs. He had that one in his pocket, leaked it to the as leverage, and then had the nerve to use his family as a shield in his press conference. Then went after his bosses job.

All the Athletic subscribers that just gobbled up all that cheap praise for years. He emptied the till at the deadline, too.

[DreamTeam09]

Is Treliving a good hire?

yeah he's a good hire, well respected & experienced.

[youreachiteach]

All the radio guys here were talking about Dubas to Pittsburgh through the playoffs. He had that one in his pocket, leaked it to the as leverage, and then had the nerve to use his family as a shield in his press conference. Then went after his bosses job.

All the Athletic subscribers that just gobbled up all that cheap praise for years. He emptied the till at the deadline, too.

Nah. Did they have the right to fire Dubas considering his playoff record/expensive contracts given out? Sure. But management should have dealt with it earlier and more appropriately.

The management did the equivalent of holding his feet to the fire the entire year even though they knew what that would mean by not providing any extension. This let the media rake him over the coals all year and probably made his home life not so rosy. It also put him in a difficult position in terms of being able to complete trades/feel he was in a position to take risks.

In addition, he was offered quite a few deals that were better than the one he had here. Is it any surprise he told them he wasn't overly thrilled about how he was treated and expected additional compensation? How difficult would it have been to smooth things over with him? Was it really that shocking to Shanahan that might have been the case?

It seems that Shanahan was blindsided by Dubas' comments but they couldn't have been unknown--he just didn't like how he was portrayed and committed an emotional firing which didn't help either side. Treliving is a decent GM who should do a good job--he had a harder one in Calgary anyway. The point remains, this was a complete mess up regardless of how it actually went down (we will never really know this).

This was really poorly handled by Shanahan. He allowed the board to do the politically expedient thing last year and hang Dubas out to dry and then was shocked when he complained (and had better offers). What did he expect, he was just going to take all the abuse when he was limited by Shanahan himself? Either you trust the man to do the job or you don't. He should have fired him last year if he wasn't going to negotiate when the time came (which means allowing that the cost might go up). The more we learn about Shanny the more I'm sensing Dubas would have made more major moves (which I thought would be the opposite).