Speculation: Is D or Center more of a need.

[Daisy Jane]

1. When you have three potential first lines, you won't be dependent on defence.

2. You will also be able to mask and develop your defence if #1 is true.

3. Growing your defence internally will he cheaper on the cap.

4. I'm all for a defence upgrade, but it should Doughty or nothing. The rest of the field has a high potential to flop as we have seen here in the past 10 years.

why not Karlsson. he could be a good option too, right?

 

[Nineteen67]

The top 6 D are not gawd awful but adding some insurance wouldnt be a bad thing. Speed and length would ideal if they can get one to fallout tree

 

[Nineteen67]

why not Karlsson. he could be a good option too, right?

I would love him if they knew for certain his foot is ok. I’ve seen get beat to pucks that he would have retrieved prior to the injury.

 

[7even]

he landed gardiner for beauchemin, not blake. he landed js gigeure for blake and toskala

Been addressed and corrected

 

[rent free]

Been addressed and corrected

oh sorry u can't be corrected by more than 1 person

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

I think the goal right now for management is to somehow grab another Ron Hainsey so both Gardiner and Rielly can have one.

Dermott is a better version of hainsey. He's not as experienced but man he's calm and poised and smart

 

[7even]

oh sorry u can't be corrected by more than 1 people

Someone's grumpy.

I mean if you want to be redundant for the sake of being redundant go for it champ

 

[rent free]

Someone's grumpy.

I mean if you want to be redundant for the sake of being redundant go for it champ

well i didn't know someone corrected you earlier. maybe you should tell me next time so i wont have to correct you

 

[Randy Randerson]

oh sorry u can't be corrected by more than 1 people

"people" in the singular is "person"....

 

[rent free]

"people" in the singular is "person"....

yah thats what i meant

 

[Randy Randerson]

yah thats what i meant

glass houses, fella

 

[rent free]

glass houses, fella

yup got me there. congrats

 

[Minus Mitch]

Kulemin was part of a 2nd line where there as a sharp drop off in talent after that, this team has had Connor Brown on the 4th line while Leivo/Kapanen/Johnsson/Grundstrom were all not on the active roster.....you can see it however you like, this is uncharted territory for us

of course there are no guarantees, that should be obvious, but to parlay that into a senteminent that this team is somehow not good because they aren't guaranteed to win is just unwarranted pessimism (aka par for your course)

also, lol at the idea that Marner and Nylander can't get to the level of Jake Guentzel. Have never seen a Marner to Kessel comparison, Kane & Giroux are the most common ones and both seem apt as upsides especially Giroux

agree with moving some of the veterans, but the idea that a guy who hasn't won before can't be part of a winner is an utter fallacy. Kessel also didn't win here....

Funny how it's unwarranted pessimism because it's a negative opinion yet yours is unwarranted overzealous but because it's fanboy enthusiasm it's the correct unwarrant lol. This team is a first round knockout team. There were much better early 2000 teams.

Leivo/Kapanen/Johnsson/Gundstrom have proven they can't play on the big team and haven't stolen anyones job. You are just proving my over hyped fanboy point.

What's Claude Giroux ever won? And he has 5 - 20 plus goal seasons. Marner will struggle to ever get near 20 again.

Kessel here would still be line 1 and a key cog. On a good team he's third line and all secondary.

 

[highslot]

one the prospect side, center is weak. aaltonen, gauthier, brooks, kara.

none have top 6 potential generally, aaltonen and brooks may be tweeners for 2nd and 3rd.

d-liljegren, rasanen, dermott, greenway, rosen, lindgren, valiev, holl

3 have top 4 potential, and liligren has top line potential

we need a few boom bust c like the way bracco/timashov/johnnson are on wing.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Funny how it's unwarranted pessimism because it's a negative opinion yet yours is unwarranted overzealous but because it's fanboy enthusiasm it's the correct unwarrant lol. 1) This team is a first round knockout team. There were much better early 2000 teams.

2) Leivo/Kapanen/Johnsson/Gundstrom have proven they can't play on the big team and haven't stolen anyones job. You are just proving my over hyped fanboy point.

3) What's Claude Giroux ever won? And he has 20 plus goal seasons. Marner will struggle to ever get near 20 again.

4) Kessel here would still be line 1 and a key cog. On a good team he's third line and all secondary.

1) want to pick some lottery numbers for me too, given that you're some kind of oracle? You don't know that, and the standings/professional handicappers disagree on the likelihood of that happening

2) lol, all of these guys have passed every test they've been given. Doesn't mean they'll succeed in the NHL, but the opposite of disqualifying them

3) so....Brian Rust is a better player than Claude Giroux because he has multiple cups and Giroux has none? wacky logic

4) so you're saying that players can be part of a winning team if their role is adjusted to suit them? Man, its too bad we haven't moved JVR&Bozak to the 3rd line from the 1st, Gardiner from a sometimes #1 to a 2nd pairing defenseman, Kadri from the great white hope of the franchise to a 2nd line center, etc

5) have you ever considered a name change to "Chicken Little"?

 

[Liminality]

Dermott is a better version of hainsey. He's not as experienced but man he's calm and poised and smart

Maybe in the future he is. I think you're really underrating what Hainsey has brought this year though.

 

[Minus Mitch]

1) want to pick some lottery numbers for me too, given that you're some kind of oracle? You don't know that, and the standings/professional handicappers disagree on the likelihood of that happening

2) lol, all of these guys have passed every test they've been given. Doesn't mean they'll succeed in the NHL, but the opposite of disqualifying them

3) so....Brian Rust is a better player than Claude Giroux because he has multiple cups and Giroux has none? wacky logic

4) so you're saying that players can be part of a winning team if their role is adjusted to suit them? Man, its too bad we haven't moved JVR&Bozak to the 3rd line from the 1st, Gardiner from a sometimes #1 to a 2nd pairing defenseman, Kadri from the great white hope of the franchise to a 2nd line center, etc

5) have you ever considered a name change to "Chicken Little"?

1) It's been proven. Until proven they are not a first round knockout team. The only one pretending to be an oracle in this conversation is you.

2) How have they proven anything? They can't take an NHL job today. Surely you understand that.

3) Not sure where I said that, but hey Brian Rust has proven he can play a role on a Cup winning team. Giroux?

4) No idea what your saying here but okey dokey.

5) This is usually a response by a poster when shown that his posts are nothing but fanboy over enthusiasm with zero merit so you resort to name calling.

 

[Trapper]

Kulemin was part of a 2nd line where there as a sharp drop off in talent after that, this team has had Connor Brown on the 4th line while Leivo/Kapanen/Johnsson/Grundstrom were all not on the active roster.....you can see it however you like, this is uncharted territory for us

of course there are no guarantees, that should be obvious, but to parlay that into a senteminent that this team is somehow not good because they aren't guaranteed to win is just unwarranted pessimism (aka par for your course)

also, lol at the idea that Marner and Nylander can't get to the level of Jake Guentzel. Have never seen a Marner to Kessel comparison, Kane & Giroux are the most common ones and both seem apt as upsides especially Giroux

agree with moving some of the veterans, but the idea that a guy who hasn't won before can't be part of a winner is an utter fallacy. Kessel also didn't win here....

The difference with Kessel is he went somewhere with winners. With playoff experience.
My understanding is we are keeping the UFA vets as what? Playoff experience examples to the core? What playoff experience?
Also the frame of reference for me is skewed keeping players we should have moved on from. So we go through 82 games and playoffs with the UFAs on board. How we finish and how we do in the playoffs is based on having tide players for the full year. Now take them away. We have no idea how most Marlies will do because they barely get an opportunity. If the UFAs walk and we falter at 3C/4C, no one can replace JVR as people say plus whatever isn't back, are you basing next year on better, worse or even. And at the same time we still need to address organizational C and more D depth RHD. As well as some better, faster, aggressive fore-checkers. But we didn't get the assets for what might walk.
This is not knowing when to move on from guys.

 

[Randy Randerson]

1) It's been proven. Until proven they are not a first round knockout team. The only one pretending to be an oracle in this conversation is you.

2) How have they proven anything? They can't take an NHL job today. Surely you understand that.

3) Not sure where I said that, but hey Brian Rust has proven he can play a role on a Cup winning team. Giroux?

4) No idea what your saying here but okey dokey.

5) This is usually a response by a poster when shown that his posts are nothing but fanboy over enthusiasm with zero merit so you resort to name calling.

1)....so unless the team has won the cup by the trade deadline each year, we should blow it up? The playoffs haven't started yet, you can't make any judgements based on playoff performance, and I can't believe I have to say that

2) there's a tiered league system in place that acts to qualify the prospects who succeed to proceed to the next level, and disqualify those who don't succeed. All of the guys you mentioned have succeeded at each level they've played, none of them have enough NHL time to make any judgements and what they have done has looked good

3) You said that Giroux isn't good because he hasn't won anything, winning cups isn't a good measure of individuals. Giroux is a very very good NHL'er, we would be ecstatic for Marner to turn out at that level

4) We've adjusted the roles of every guy you want to deal, and you agree that adjusting Kessel's role from what he was here to what he is in Pittsburgh allowed him to succeed, so there's a reason why they're all succeeding now

5) pot or kettle?

 

[Randy Randerson]

The difference with Kessel is he went somewhere with winners. With playoff experience.
My understanding is we are keeping the UFA vets as what? Playoff experience examples to the core? What playoff experience?
Also the frame of reference for me is skewed keeping players we should have moved on from. So we go through 82 games and playoffs with the UFAs on board. How we finish and how we do in the playoffs is based on having tide players for the full year. Now take them away. We have no idea how most Marlies will do because they barely get an opportunity. If the UFAs walk and we falter at 3C/4C, no one can replace JVR as people say plus whatever isn't back, are you basing next year on better, worse or even. And at the same time we still need to address organizational C and more D depth RHD. As well as some better, faster, aggressive fore-checkers. But we didn't get the assets for what might walk.
This is not knowing when to move on from guys.

I actually agree that we should deal JVR & Bozak, but that's more driven by increasing future cost and probably declining play due to age. Just making the point that because a player hasn't been on a cup winning team in the past doesn't mean he can't be in the future, especially where the roles have been hugely downgraded

 

[ottomaddox]

Our biggest need is a top 4 RHD

Do you actually believe that this completes the Maple Leafs? If so, then this could have been done a long time ago.

 

[Chief keefe]

Nylander is ready to play center IMO. I think he would thrive if he was given his own line to center with wingers that would complement his game. I feel that he's a competitive guy and we should set up a situation where Matthews is the top line, Nylander is the second line. Then Nylander is going to want to try to out-score the Matthew's line and there will be a healthy competition between the two lines. Then we have two dynamic scoring lines (with the Nylander line being super fast)... then we still have Kadri for our checking line. Bozak is a hell of a good number 4 center. Solid center depth.

XXX - Matthews - Marner
Marleau - Nylander - Kapanen
XXXX - Kadri - Brown
Komarov - Bozak - XXXX

fill in the blanks with JVR, Hyman, Leivo

and if Babcock really thinks that Nylander can't play center yet... I'd just switch Nylander and Marleau and then move Nylander to center when Marleau's contract is done or Babcock feels that Nylander is ready.

Hyman- Matthews - Marner
Marleau - Nylander - Kapanen
JVR - Kadri - Brown
Komarov - Bozak - Leivo

That doesn't look too bad based on what you have BUT I'd much rather do this

Hyman-Matthews-Nylander
Marleau-Kadri-Marner
JVR-Bozak-Kapanen/brown
Komarov-Goat-Brown/kapanen

As for D

Reilly- (acquisition for 1st, Sosh, leivo +borgman/carrick)
Gardiner- Hainsey
Dermott- Zaitsev

That acquisition better be solid stay at home RHD because we are giving them the moon here. Leivo is a top 9 potential player, sosh could potentially do what panik did in Chicago. Borg and Carrick are both solid bottom pairing defencmen with Borg having more upside to be a top 4 in my opinion. He just needs to develop a little. Carrick reminds of Gardiner with 100 more mistakes which is a lot cause Gards does a lot on his own....

 

[Minus Mitch]

1)....so unless the team has won the cup by the trade deadline each year, we should blow it up? The playoffs haven't started yet, you can't make any judgements based on playoff performance, and I can't believe I have to say that

2) there's a tiered league system in place that acts to qualify the prospects who succeed to proceed to the next level, and disqualify those who don't succeed. All of the guys you mentioned have succeeded at each level they've played, none of them have enough NHL time to make any judgements and what they have done has looked good

3) You said that Giroux isn't good because he hasn't won anything, winning cups isn't a good measure of individuals. Giroux is a very very good NHL'er, we would be ecstatic for Marner to turn out at that level

4) We've adjusted the roles of every guy you want to deal, and you agree that adjusting Kessel's role from what he was here to what he is in Pittsburgh allowed him to succeed, so there's a reason why they're all succeeding now

5) pot or kettle?

1) Good grief man. I can make judgement based on last years performance. I have more to go on than you do. I can't believe I have to tell you I have facts you have fantasy.

2) Yet they can't take an NHL job. Fact. Not fantasy.

3) Never ever said Giroux isn't a good player. Did say he has won shit.

4) And haven't made it past round 1. Same players failing. Adjust them out the door and maybe things change.

 

[OppositeLocK]

1) Good grief man. I can make judgement based on last years performance. I have more to go on than you do. I can't believe I have to tell you I have facts you have fantasy.

2) Yet they can't take an NHL job. Fact. Not fantasy.

3) Never ever said Giroux isn't a good player. Did say he has won ****.

4) And haven't made it past round 1. Same players failing. Adjust them out the door and maybe things change.

Really not sure how Kapanen is considered fringe. He’s a great option on any team’s fourth line and that’s a worst case scenario.

 

[Minus Mitch]

Really not sure how Kapanen is considered fringe. He’s a great option on any team’s fourth line and that’s a worst case scenario.

Has never played more than 9 games in an NHL season. Someone believes he cannot steal an NHL job today.