Speculation: 2019 Off Season Roster Discussion #5 - OR - The Everlasting GobStromer

[Kaizen]

I think people are counting their burried contracts twice.

But about Yotes... Who did you hope for in the draft. Caufield? Ok, it's a bit moot. But I just have to ask for no reason.

I was leaning towards Soderstrom simply because he's a righty - I don't pretend to know if if was a prescient pick or not. I also would have had no objection to a speedy forward.

 

[Jamieh]

Gardiner is much better than his perceived reputation. A really good analytics player. But if I was betting and he was willing to sign for $4 million he will be a Leaf next season. The team likes the player and the player loves Toronto.

 

[Jakey53]

Gardiner is much better than his perceived reputation. A really good analytics player. But if I was betting and he was willing to sign for $4 million he will be a Leaf next season. The team likes the player and the player loves Toronto.

How much do you think he gets?

 

[Jamieh]

How much do you think he gets?

I would guess in the $6 range plus or minus $500K. Teams are probably worried on term given recent back issues. If he is $5 million or less I think the Leafs find a way to sign him.

 

[RemoAZ]

Chayka's comment about the "hope" for Strome was because he didn't see someone who was consistent enough in his time here. That wasn't a parting shot meant to be an ass - it was meant to say that we needed someone who would be consistent for us at a needed position.

What it was, was piss poor evaluation resulting from even worse development of a #3 overall pick who instantly became what we STILL desperately need day f***ing ONE on his new team. But I'm not going to start on that again...

 

[Jakey53]

I would guess in the $6 range plus or minus $500K. Teams are probably worried on term given recent back issues. If he is $5 million or less I think the Leafs find a way to sign him.

How would you compare him to Gogo.

 

[Jakey53]

What it was, was piss poor evaluation resulting from even worse development of a #3 overall pick who instantly became what we STILL desperately need day ****ing ONE on his new team. But I'm not going to start on that again...

The development was fine as Strome went to Chi town and produced, but I would add that it was super piss poor coaching at times, and it wasn't only with Strome, it was other areas last year as well. One of my biggest concerns next year is the coaching and if Chayka can let the team gel instead of getting trigger happy again. RT has not won as a HC and Chayka has not won as a GM. Can they both turn it around? Hope so.

 

[BUX7PHX]

What it was, was piss poor evaluation resulting from even worse development of a #3 overall pick who instantly became what we STILL desperately need day ****ing ONE on his new team. But I'm not going to start on that again...

The development was fine as Strome went to Chi town and produced, but I would add that it was super piss poor coaching at times, and it wasn't only with Strome, it was other areas last year as well. One of my biggest concerns next year is the coaching and if Chayka can let the team gel instead of getting trigger happy again. RT has not won as a HC and Chayka has not won as a GM. Can they both turn it around? Hope so.

And we get dragged back in....

One of you says it was bad development and the other disagrees. Then it is the coach that didn't do him right.

For Christ's sake - when is it ever going to be about the PLAYER in question? If he did fine in Chicago, then he was developed better than people believe. But how do you trust a guy with major minutes who went on this cycle:

1 P in 7 games
0 P in 2 games (OCT 2017)
1 P in 9 games (NOV-DEC 2017)
8 P in 9 games (MAR-APR 2017)
6 P in 20 games (OCT-NOV 2018)

A player taken that high should be capable of far better natural progression and making his team better. A guy who had historic value in terms of PPG in draft year and D+1 year should bring it earlier. Why and how in the world should anyone have confidence in the player if the only time he saw success was a 9 game stretch at the end of a lost season in which we played 3 playoff teams in those 9 games.

You can't tell me that any of you was confident that Strome was going to break out on this team up to the point that he was traded. And if you think so, you are lying to yourself.

 

[Name Nameless]

Any updates on how the previously injured players fare now, like Raanta?

 

[RemoAZ]

The development was fine as Strome went to Chi town and produced, but I would add that it was super piss poor coaching at times, and it wasn't only with Strome, it was other areas last year as well. One of my biggest concerns next year is the coaching and if Chayka can let the team gel instead of getting trigger happy again. RT has not won as a HC and Chayka has not won as a GM. Can they both turn it around? Hope so.

Disagree. A big part of development is putting the player in a position to succeed. They didn't do that at the NHL level here and Chicago immediately remedied that. Chicago played him in the only role he had played in at every level with every team except our geniuses did at the NHL level. We sent him packing because he wasn't a good 4th line checking center. Brilliant! Grrrrrrrrrr I gotta stop talking about this. I need a 12 step program...

 

[BUX7PHX]

Disagree. A big part of development is putting the player in a position to succeed. They didn't do that at the NHL level here and Chicago immediately remedied that. Chicago played him in the only role he had played in at every level with every team except our geniuses did at the NHL level. We sent him packing because he wasn't a good 4th line checking center. Brilliant! Grrrrrrrrrr I gotta stop talking about this. I need a 12 step program...

So is that a good or bad thing to have a one-dimensional player for a role at the NHL level?

 

[Jamieh]

How would you compare him to Gogo.

Better player. Decent offense, not bad defensively, and very good at getting puck out of his defensive zone. Better skater. His analytics are quite good.

 

[SniperHF]

So is that a good or bad thing to have a one-dimensional player for a role at the NHL level?

The answer to both questions is yes.

 

[BUX7PHX]

The answer to both questions is yes.

Cause they are called enforcers and being phased out of the league?

Sorry, I just want some context because if someone is going to be on the ice 18+ minutes per night, I have to expect that they would be just as comfortable fore-checking as they are playing the half-wall on the PP, or any sort of game situation that would be considered opposites of each other.

The pitcher who throws gas, but can't have a solid 2nd or 3rd pitch gets relegated as a closer instead of being a dependable rotation starter. The small forward who is great at shooting 3s but lacks a lot of inside game and shot creation will be of value, but never elite (think Kyle Korver, for the NBA fans out there).

Otherwise, you only have a player who can contribute in one area, and over time, that player would either seem to be phased out in the sport in some way or never produce to a desired level, no?

 

[Jakey53]

Disagree. A big part of development is putting the player in a position to succeed. They didn't do that at the NHL level here and Chicago immediately remedied that. Chicago played him in the only role he had played in at every level with every team except our geniuses did at the NHL level. We sent him packing because he wasn't a good 4th line checking center. Brilliant! Grrrrrrrrrr I gotta stop talking about this. I need a 12 step program...

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, but I think what you just described is more to do with coaching, not development.

 

[Jakey53]

Better player. Decent offense, not bad defensively, and very good at getting puck out of his defensive zone. Better skater. His analytics are quite good.

Interesting. I only followed the Leafs when they were in the playoffs and Gardiner did not look good.

 

[Jakey53]

So is that a good or bad thing to have a one-dimensional player for a role at the NHL level?

There are hundred of one dimensional players in the NHL, past, present and in the future.

 

[Jamieh]

Interesting. I only followed the Leafs when they were in the playoffs and Gardiner did not look good.

He has been the scapegoat for a couple of team letdowns. The Leaf's don't exactly play supportive defense from the forwards.

 

[SniperHF]

Cause they are called enforcers and being phased out of the league?

Sorry, I just want some context because if someone is going to be on the ice 18+ minutes per night, I have to expect that they would be just as comfortable fore-checking as they are playing the half-wall on the PP, or any sort of game situation that would be considered opposites of each other.

The pitcher who throws gas, but can't have a solid 2nd or 3rd pitch gets relegated as a closer instead of being a dependable rotation starter. The small forward who is great at shooting 3s but lacks a lot of inside game and shot creation will be of value, but never elite (think Kyle Korver, for the NBA fans out there).

Otherwise, you only have a player who can contribute in one area, and over time, that player would either seem to be phased out in the sport in some way or never produce to a desired level, no?

Alex Galchenyuk is a one dimensional power play specialist outside of 1 season everyone is still clinging on to hope for, most teams would take him in a slot in their lineup in a vacuum. But it's also bad that for your future that your 24 year old talented player can't seem to grow beyond this one dimension. But power play specialists aren't being phased out any time soon (likely ever barring rule changes). Useful one dimensional players are good. A team full of one dimension players is bad. If you only draft (either by accident, bad luck, or intent) one dimensional players you'll never progress. He still plays 16 minutes a night and takes a regular shift.

The answer is yes because it just is, if you already have the asset you try and get the most out of it. Frankly Nick Schmaltz is pretty one dimensional and he's going to get every opportunity to display that dimension. The criticisms of his game in Chicago are almost identical. Has the smarts to be an average or + defender but often checks out, not a good board battler and indeed avoids going into those areas, avoids contact, doesn't shoot enough.

 

[BUX7PHX]

There are hundred of one dimensional players in the NHL, past, present and in the future.

Any that you would give 18+ minutes a game to, or do they all fall into the 3rd/4th line roles as grinders/checking line players?

 

[Jakey53]

Any that you would give 18+ minutes a game to, or do they all fall into the 3rd/4th line roles as grinders/checking line players?

Many one dimensional players are top six, but some can be on the third and fourth line. Look at the Coyotes roster and probably the top three forwards this coming year are really one dimensional.

 

[NORiculous]

Gardiner is much better than his perceived reputation. A really good analytics player.

I don't think so.

Gardiner had easier opposition then Reilly, Hainsey, Muzzin and Zaitsev...

Sure Gardiner drove possession but it was as a 3rd paring guy (in termes of quality of opposition)!

Giving him tough opposition screams trouble, IMO.

 

[Jamieh]

I don't think so.

Gardiner had easier opposition then Reilly, Hainsey, Muzzin and Zaitsev...

Sure Gardiner drove possession but it was as a 3rd paring guy (in termes of quality of opposition)!

Giving him tough opposition screams trouble, IMO.

Odd as he played 2nd most minutes on D?? After injury you really see how much he was missed and he didn't return to form last year.

 

[Mosby]

He didn’t mention Arizona, but I was listening to Brian Burke on Sportsnet radio yesterday and he is 100% convinced that Auston Matthews is leaving Toronto when his contract is up in five years. He’s even willing to wager a significant amount of money on it.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Alex Galchenyuk is a one dimensional power play specialist outside of 1 season everyone is still clinging on to hope for, most teams would take him in a slot in their lineup in a vacuum. But it's also bad that for your future that your 24 year old talented player can't seem to grow beyond this one dimension. But power play specialists aren't being phased out any time soon (likely ever barring rule changes). Useful one dimensional players are good. A team full of one dimension players is bad. If you only draft (either by accident, bad luck, or intent) one dimensional players you'll never progress. He still plays 16 minutes a night and takes a regular shift.

The answer is yes because it just is, if you already have the asset you try and get the most out of it. Frankly Nick Schmaltz is pretty one dimensional and he's going to get every opportunity to display that dimension. The criticisms of his game in Chicago are almost identical. Has the smarts to be an average or + defender but often checks out, not a good board battler and indeed avoids going into those areas, avoids contact, doesn't shoot enough.

And this is Galchenyuk's 3rd team in 3 years and by the age of 25.

You are kind of making the point for me - these are the more expendable types because of their one dimensional play, and not the ones that you necessarily keep to develop.

The more one-dimensional that the player is, the more you have to find the necessary complementary pieces of multi-faceted players to help. Isn't it easier to have the one-dimensional players as cheap, lower line deals that can be replaced easily, as opposed to waiting on that player to break out if they are one-dimensional?