Around the NHL 2023-2024

[Brian39]

I agree, but go back to the entire point of my post: if I'm Toronto, I ask for permission.


Go back to my post and read

Because that would give him at least the same power. Whether he gets less autonomy is a different question, but if you're going so far as to shell out money for him to have the position I don't think you're imposing ... but you have to run every single thing you want to do by us because that defeats the entire "how much power do you want to come here" part of the offer.


I think Shanahan should be fired. Will he be? My gut says no, but I don't know how he survives after an 8th year of failure under his grand plan, after he shitcanned the GM who allegedly wanted to blow up the core. Which, again, goes back to what I would do if I'm Keith Pelley making decisions this offseason.

And if Toronto is serious about winning the Cup, having 1 guy do 2 positions is barely a concern if you think he's the guy that can lead you to the Cup. It's sure as hell not a financial concern.


I won't be shocked if Toronto blows up the front office in part. I think there's a better chance of that than ownership letting Armstrong out of his contract, but if Doug wants to leave does it really do any good to point to that contract and say "nope, you're serving it out?"

The worst that happens is Stillman says "no." The 2nd worst that happens is Doug says "no." Might any of it happen? No, maybe (probably) not. But, you don't know if you never ask. Toronto may as well ask, settling for the 15th best candidate without reaching out to the first 14 because their team might say no is not how you achieve excellence and a championship.

Who specifically do you mean when you say "they," "you," and "Toronto?" Is this Shanny asking or ownership asking? Are you suggesting that hockey operations or ownership will be reaching out to Stillman about Army? Does this happen before or after they make the decision to fire Shanny?

Because there are a hell of a lot of negative consequences to being told 'no' if you are talking about ownership sniffing around other replacement candidates while their hockey ops department is still working as if they have jobs. If I were Toronto ownership, I wouldn't ask permission until after I have made the decision to blow up the entire front office (which I don't find likely even if it might be the correct decision).

 

[The Note]

Didn’t the Leafs just hire Treliving like almost exactly a year ago? While I don’t think too terribly much of Treliving, it seems pretty dramatic to toss him out already, particularly given that the roster’s overall failings aren’t really on him. Firing Keefe seems like a near certainty though.

 

[Brian39]

Didn’t the Leafs just hire Treliving like almost exactly a year ago? While I don’t think too terribly much of Treliving, it seems pretty dramatic to toss him out already, particularly given that the roster’s overall failings aren’t really on him. Firing Keefe seems like a near certainty though.

I think a Treliving firing would only happen if ownership is ready to fully clean house by getting rid of Shanny and every executive he hired.

 

[SirPaste]

No chance Stillman will let Army go but have no fear Leaf fans, we can offer Army's right hand man Peter Chiarelli as a consolation prize.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't know what there is to work out. We can't get compensation from Toronto for allowing him to leave and having to replace the head of our front office (and everyone who follows Army to Toronto) would dramatically hurt our organization. We don't have a mechanism to prevent all of 'his' people in our front office from following him to Toronto when their contracts expire. There are no roster/pick/monetary considerations that we could benefit from to let him go.

There isn't a middle ground to work out.

My thinking is that they would try and make it amicable, but maybe not. To your point, I agree, it's not like there are any formal mechanisms we could use in the situation.

It is not allowed.

Thanks, that's why I thought.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Who specifically do you mean when you say "they," "you," and "Toronto?" Is this Shanny asking or ownership asking? Are you suggesting that hockey operations or ownership will be reaching out to Stillman about Army? Does this happen before or after they make the decision to fire Shanny?

Go back, read my post from the start, understand what I'm saying, then try all of this again.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

i don't see leafs as option for army this summer. toronto hired treliving last year. they may well fire shanny, but the gm too? seems like axing tree after 1 year would be kind of thing that would scare off guys like army. why would he possibly want to leave great place where he has such strong relationship with his boss to step into that?

Because ... he would get to be President and GM and all of the resources of the Maple Leafs at his disposal, which are considerably greater than all of the resources he has here.

Let's be serious here: as much as Blues Nation will always remember him as being the GM of our Cup-winning team, whoever does that in Toronto and erases the cries of "1967" from anti-Leafs Nation will earn mythical status from Leafs Nation - and that's something that's far greater than everything he's accomplished here. If you want a challenge to show everyone how great you are, ... right there it is, you're probably not getting a better shot with that franchise in the next 10, 15, 20 years or however long you plan on being a hockey executive.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It would be like Theo Epstein. A nice little feather in the cap to bring St. Louis their 1st Cup, and ending Toronto's drought. It would solidify his GM legacy as an all-time great, as opposed to Poile's legacy of leading 1 org for a really long time. Poile can say he built an org from ground up, and Army can say he brought a Cup to an established org.

I don't think he leaves, but I do think any exec would listen if Toronto calls.

 

[Frenzy31]

I'm going to pick on this, too.

There's no requirement for compensation. Nothing says Toronto can't offer it freely.

Regardless of if this can happen..... Who do you see/want to place Armstrong with????

 

[Brian39]

Go back, read my post from the start, understand what I'm saying, then try all of this again.

I read your post. Your post was vague, which is why I asked questions about what you mean.

"Toronto" is not a person. I don't know if you are referring to their hockey operations department or their ownership group when you talk about what "they" should do. I don't know if you are suggesting that 'they" dismantle their front office and then ask to talk to Army, or if you are suggesting that "they" should seek an answer about Army before deciding whether to clean house.

Your initial post referred specifically in the context of him as "a great GM" which makes it less than clear whether you are talking about him as the next GM, the next President of Hockey Ops, or both.

No one can understand what you are saying when you don't articulate it and then refuse to answer clarifying questions.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I read your post. Your post was vague, which is why I asked questions about what you mean.

"Toronto" is not a person. I don't know if you are referring to their hockey operations department or their ownership group when you talk about what "they" should do. I don't know if you are suggesting that 'they" dismantle their front office and then ask to talk to Army, or if you are suggesting that "they" should seek an answer about Army before deciding whether to clean house.

Your initial post referred specifically in the context of him as "a great GM" which makes it less than clear whether you are talking about him as the next GM, the next President of Hockey Ops, or both.

No one can understand what you are saying when you don't articulate it and then refuse to answer clarifying questions.

The great GM part was just mocking some of the pro-Army posters here. He'd use Toronto not moving heaven and earth to get Army as evidence that he's not as good of a GM as the pro-Army crowd believe.

 

[ezcreepin]

Tavares wouldn't even accept a pitch meeting from the Blues when he was a free agent in 2018. He turns 34 this year and has never made a deep playoff run. I don't see any reason that he would even consider waiving his NTC for the Blues.

Even if he did, there is also basically no chance that Faulk waives his NTC for Toronto. He's an American and was one of the few players who publicly criticized Canada's COVID protocols in 2021/22. He's played his entire career in the US in smaller markets and I can't imagine he has any desire to go to the absolute center of the Canadian hockey media.

We're not getting Tavares.

You might be right that Faulk wouldn’t waive his no trade to Toronto, I wouldn’t doubt that. But the Tavares thing is sort of moot at this point. The only teams he met with were the Sharks, Lightning, Stars, Bruins and Islanders. He’s not getting traded to the Bruins, probably not the Lightning (since they’re in division). He’s absolutely not going to the Sharks. The Stars could make it work if they sent cap out just from what I looked at their cap. Would he go back to NYI? Idk maybe, maybe he’d go to Buffalo, but I’m not sure about that. He holds the cards in the Leafs decision, but I wouldn’t say there’s no way he comes here. There’s absolutely a way.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't think he ever accepts a trade from a playoff team, a team that should continue to get 100+ points, to go to a team that likely isn't making the playoffs and in sort of a rebuild.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I read your post. Your post was vague, which is why I asked questions about what you mean.

I don't know what's vague about "if I'm Toronto, I ...." but maybe I need to be incredibly explicit about what that means, so that everything else becomes more clear.

It is not allowed.

that allowed teams to seek compensation when other franchises hired away a coach or executive under contract

Which is completely different from a team offering compensation of its own free will, without a requirement being imposed by the other team. Again: please read what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying so you can distort it to what you feel like you need to say.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Regardless of if this can happen..... Who do you see/want to place Armstrong with????

I really hate this kind of question, because it invariably leads to someone saying "if we don't have an answer / we don't have an acceptable answer, then we must default back to the status quo" because that leads to inaction and a perpetuation of the status quo, and that can lead to missed opportunities.

That said, I'll throw out a few names:

1. Mathiew Darche - current assistant GM in Tampa Bay. Very highly regarded around the league. Unclear if he'd jump from Tampa, but if he wants to move up he may have to go elsewhere.

2. Eric Tulsky - assistant GM in Carolina, apparently excels in teh analytics which shows in how that team has been built given the team's financials. Has been talked about as being a candidate for a number of other teams. Depending on what happens this offseason, he might be interested in looking elsewhere.

3. Ryan Bowness - assistant GM in Ottawa. Also highly regarded. Also ... Ottawa, so is he good and Pierre Dorion was an idiot, or is he not as good as hyped and that didn't help Dorion?

4. Mark Hunter - owner/GM, London Knights. This may be a reach, at 61 he might not want to make the jump / might be a short-term hire while tutoring a long-term replacement.

5. John Ferguson, Jr. - I know, everyone wants to knee-jerk react to his time in Toronto. That was some 20 years ago. He's spent time in the Boston organization, currently serves as the Arizona Utah assistant GM. I suspect he's learned quite a bit since being in Toronto.

Wild cards: Emilie Castonguay, Cammi Granato - both are assistant GMs with Vancouver. Emilie has the bonus of being the only female NHLPA certified agent. If you want to make a splash and be known as the first team to hire a female GM, either of these two appear to be capable of doing the job.

 

[ezcreepin]

I don't think he ever accepts a trade from a playoff team, a team that should continue to get 100+ points, to go to a team that likely isn't making the playoffs and in sort of a rebuild.

Idk, 102 points vs 92 points. I think with a different coach we get into the playoffs, possibly hit somewhere around 96-98 points. We lost to the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, and Sharks all twice. Should have won at least 3 of those, so that would've put us at 98. Win two of them and we're at 96. I think it's possible he would wave but that's just my speculation.

Obviously the above is hindsight, but I do think it's fair to say we should've won both games against the Sharks and split against Columbus. Although the same could be said for the Leafs against Chicago so *shrug*

 

[ezcreepin]

I really hate this kind of question, because it invariably leads to someone saying "if we don't have an answer / we don't have an acceptable answer, then we must default back to the status quo" because that leads to inaction and a perpetuation of the status quo, and that can lead to missed opportunities.

That said, I'll throw out a few names:

1. Mathiew Darche - current assistant GM in Tampa Bay. Very highly regarded around the league. Unclear if he'd jump from Tampa, but if he wants to move up he may have to go elsewhere.

2. Eric Tulsky - assistant GM in Carolina, apparently excels in teh analytics which shows in how that team has been built given the team's financials. Has been talked about as being a candidate for a number of other teams. Depending on what happens this offseason, he might be interested in looking elsewhere.

3. Ryan Bowness - assistant GM in Ottawa. Also highly regarded. Also ... Ottawa, so is he good and Pierre Dorion was an idiot, or is he not as good as hyped and that didn't help Dorion?

4. Mark Hunter - owner/GM, London Knights. This may be a reach, at 61 he might not want to make the jump / might be a short-term hire while tutoring a long-term replacement.

5. John Ferguson, Jr. - I know, everyone wants to knee-jerk react to his time in Toronto. That was some 20 years ago. He's spent time in the Boston organization, currently serves as the Arizona Utah assistant GM. I suspect he's learned quite a bit since being in Toronto.

Wild cards: Emilie Castonguay, Cammi Granato - both are assistant GMs with Vancouver. Emilie has the bonus of being the only female NHLPA certified agent. If you want to make a splash and be known as the first team to hire a female GM, either of these two appear to be capable of doing the job.

Some nice names there. I'd throw in Bill Armstrong too in a season or so if they don't see some sort of success. I don't think he is a bad GM as he's done everything asked of him, but Ryan Smith may want his own guy. The only issue I can see with Emilie just from a PR standpoint is that if she doesn't do well in a GM role, now we have to play out the stupid and ridiculous argument that women can't manage sports. Then we've taken a massive step back in the game and I don't think we see another one for a while. BUT, if she does do a good job, then we have opened up the door to many good candidates.

Just want to emphasize that I would not have a problem with Emilie if Tom thought she is a good fit. I'd love for her to be hired here and build a team that stacks up against the 2010's Army built team.

 

[Blueston]

Because ... he would get to be President and GM and all of the resources of the Maple Leafs at his disposal, which are considerably greater than all of the resources he has here.

Let's be serious here: as much as Blues Nation will always remember him as being the GM of our Cup-winning team, whoever does that in Toronto and erases the cries of "1967" from anti-Leafs Nation will earn mythical status from Leafs Nation - and that's something that's far greater than everything he's accomplished here. If you want a challenge to show everyone how great you are, ... right there it is, you're probably not getting a better shot with that franchise in the next 10, 15, 20 years or however long you plan on being a hockey executive.

i get that at some point he may want another challenge, st louis can't offer him what some other places can- canadian market, original 6 etc., but first Army doesn't seem like guy who would bail just after starting rebuild before any fruits have really bloomed and second, the toronto that would axe gm after 1 season is minefield that he is probably too smart to want to walk.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

We cannot win 1 OA. Only the bottom 11 can. Best we can do is 5 OA. We have a 1.1% chance if that.

Yes I know, but we can still win the draft lottery and move up 10 spots. That's why I wrote what I wrote. "I want the Blues to win the draft lottery (to maximize draft position) and would be cool if Utah gets the first overall pick."

I'd also be happy if Columbus gets it. Not sure how I feel about San Jose, but I could accept that if it means Chicago gets denied.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

i get that at some point he may want another challenge, st louis can't offer him what some other places can- canadian market, original 6 etc., but first Army doesn't seem like guy who would bail just after starting rebuild before any fruits have really bloomed and second, the toronto that would axe gm after 1 season is minefield that he is probably too smart to want to walk.

I think Armstrong is going to bail on this rebuild retool refocus sooner than people think, especially if he sees it's not going to work as intended before others see it.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I must be hallucinating, but it seems like some of the people who want the Blues to fire Armstrong are also speculating that somehow Toronto would pursue him aggressively. So, does he suck or not suck?

 

[Ranksu]

IT would be worst move to make acquire Army in to Toronto.

Take Toronto. Take alsoo midgets Krug - Faulk too.

 

[Brian39]

I don't know what's vague about "if I'm Toronto, I ...." but maybe I need to be incredibly explicit about what that means, so that everything else becomes more clear.


Which is completely different from a team offering compensation of its own free will, without a requirement being imposed by the other team. Again: please read what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying so you can distort it to what you feel like you need to say.

"But if a coach or executive does switch teams there will be no compensation allowed."

The NHL specifically disallowed teams compensating other teams for giving up a coach/executive under contract almost 10 years ago. There is no mechanism in the CBA that allows for a draft pick to be used as "compensation" from one team to another. Teams are allowed to trade draft picks, but executives and coaches are specifically excluded from the list of things that can be traded in the NHL.

I'm reading what you are saying. What you are saying is not possible in the NHL. You wanting it to be possible doesn't make it so.

Compensation in exchange for a coach or executive under contract is not allowed by the NHL. Full stop.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Idk, 102 points vs 92 points. I think with a different coach we get into the playoffs, possibly hit somewhere around 96-98 points. We lost to the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, and Sharks all twice. Should have won at least 3 of those, so that would've put us at 98. Win two of them and we're at 96. I think it's possible he would wave but that's just my speculation.

Obviously the above is hindsight, but I do think it's fair to say we should've won both games against the Sharks and split against Columbus. Although the same could be said for the Leafs against Chicago so *shrug*

Yes, we could (should) have beaten the Coyotes, Blue Jackets and Sharks all twice. We could (should) have lost to Carolina in regulation, Dallas another time, Edmonton another time, Minnesota another time, Vancouver at least one more time, ... that door swings both ways. And, it does so for other teams as well.

In the end, we were 4 points out of a playoff spot. We'd have needed to beat Vegas outright, we lost on the first tiebreak. Our record under Bannister worked out to 98.7 points over 82 games, which would have just barely put us into a playoff spot ... which, playing the "could have, should have" game would give Vegas an extra point to keep us out. We squeezed just about everything we could out of this roster, it arguably played over its head as it was given that it basically ran on the top line, a defensive pairing and the goaltending.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

"But if a coach or executive does switch teams there will be no compensation allowed."

Wrong, Brian. The team losing the coach/executive cannot request compensation, nor is it required from the acquiring team. That was the prior policy, that is the current policy. Nothing in the current policy prohibits the acquiring team from offering a draft pick(s) or players, freely and of its own accord, in order to induce another team to relinquish the rights to an executive or coach. The only thing that's strictly prohibited is the exchange of cash between franchises in a transaction involving team personnel or "future considerations."

Not allowed: "If we let [coach/executive] go over to you, we want [draft pick(s)] in return."
Allowed: "If you let [coach/executive] come to us, we'll give you [draft pick(s)]."
Not allowed: "No, we won't let [coach/executive] go for [draft pick(s)], we'll do it for [more/better draft pick(s)]."
Allowed [after request to hire away coach/executive in exchange for a draft pick(s)]: "No, no thanks" and then a freely given counter-offer by the desiring team.

I know the wording you're trying to seize on in that link, and you're being too anal in reading it. I'm telling you what the official league policy says and that it does not prohibit a team from offering compensation on its own, without being prodded by the other team.

If you really want to dig in and go die on this hill, ... fine. Make it a player transaction, the Leafs will send [whatever player/prospect] over for "future considerations" or as part of some other trade, and then see how far up the hill you want to die on that, too.