2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs Discussion Thread

[obey86]

Thank goodness we are a lottery team with a bad cap situation as opposed to a team with 2 certified superstars in their primes, a pretty good supporting cast, a decent farm system, and a tenuous cap? That's a pretty bold statement.

-Jake Gardiner ($4.05) is absolutely terrible when it counts, so that's 'almost' addition by subtraction.

-If they can convince Babs that Marleau needs to go, they can free up $6.25 a year ahead of his contract expiring. He has a NMC, but even without it he's Toronto's more expensive version of Dan Cleary, Babs Toronto BFF, so he will be back.

-Hainseys contract is up this summer, that's $3 mil

That's not real bad given they have 2 solid D prospects with the Marlies that can 'probably' step in next year. If they want something proven, they could send Nylander+ Liljegren (might be too high, but I'm not sure about the market there) to grab a guy like Trouba. They have 2 skill guys drafted recently that are lighting it up with the Marlies that could compete for Nylanders spot.

It sucks for them that they will be paying Kessel $1.2 until 2022. Is retained salary something they can trade?

Pretty sure I'd trade the Wings roster for the Leafs.

*Jake Gardiner is far from terrible. He's a pretty good, not great, NHL defenseman.
*Marleau isn't going anywhere unless they buy him out. He has no incentive to waive his NMC.
*Not sure it would be prudent to rely on 19 and 20 year old defensemen while you're supposedly competing for the Stanley Cup. It will likely be a few years at least while those top 2 d prospects get acclimated to the NHL game to become truly good top 4 defenders.

Despite having a few really great players, they are first round fodder with a bad defense for at least the next 1-2 seasons, barring a major trade of something like Nylander+. Even then, i'm not so sure Nylander's value on the market hasn't tanked since he signed his deal - so i'm not so sure what they could really get in return for him at this point.

IMO the Leafs will need 2 years or so to let the cap rise so their big contracts aren't as prohibitive, and for Sandin and Lily to grow into solid NHL defensemen and then the team will be ready to truly compete for a Stanley Cup. The only problem with that is that in a couple years Rielly will be nearing the end of his sweetheart contract of 5M/year and if he keeps putting up 70 point seasons that sweetheart contract will be no more, and at that point Tavares will be 31 years old and soon declining. It's great they have stars, but the team constructed as is is going nowhere in the playoffs. By the time the Leafs fix their defense and are ready to compete for the Cup, the Wings should have the major pieces of their rebuild in place and be on the upswing. If the Wings can't do it in that timeframe (again, 2 years or so down the road) the rebuild failed.

Right now, the Leafs are just a younger version of the 2012 Red Wings. A couple star players, but overall the defense stinks and they will lose in the 1st round

 

[jkutswings]

I think the league needs to fix the whole "we don't call penalties in the playoffs" thing. I get the argument that you don't want the refs deciding the game but in a way that's still happening. I used to be okay with it because it made the playoffs better than the regular season. Now the regular season is super fast, skilled and entertaining. I hate how the playoffs are a defensive, subtle-interference, neutral zone trap fest. It's worse hockey than the regular season now and inconsistent reffing is a big part of that.

Quoted for truth. Let the skill shine through. I'm fine with throwing checks early and often, but stop swallowing the whistle on interference, stickwork, and the like. Either you want your stars to be stars or you don't - pick one, stick with it year round, and the players will adjust soon enough.

 

[Ricelund]

I wonder if Babcock will push for the Leafs to trade one of their forwards (Nylander?) for Doughty.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

If you agree it was a cross check, then you HAVE to call a major since it resulted in an injury. Holding that results in an injury? Major. Tripping that results in an injury? Major. Taunting that results in an injury? Major. Interference that results in an injury? Major.

View attachment 220401

You would likely be surprised if you read the league rulebook. I have no problem with the major being handed out. The problem really is to do it they needed the original call and neither official had their hand up.

But taking serious injury into account is in the league rulebook and has been my entire life. Eakins is committing two infractions when he injured Pavelski seriously raising it to a major level penalty. It was a selfish cheapshot by Eakins and they paid dearly for it.

Best end of a game I have seen in ages, super tired today.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I wonder if Babcock will push for the Leafs to trade one of their forwards (Nylander?) for Doughty.

Counter Marner or Matthews are the only young forwards worth talking Doughty if you're the Kings.

 

[obey86]

Remember when Nylander was better than Larkin? Feels so long ago.

One is a 40 point winger, the other is a near point per game center. Ok a bit of an exaggeration, but still.

 

[The Zermanator]

18 of 24.

Remember that stat. He was on the ice for 18 of 24 goals against. He's been a trainwreck defensively. Yeah he got an assist, but that doesn't undo the fact he's been really bad in his own end.

First of all, he is battling through a groin injury which affects his skating. Despite this, he's playing an average of 27 minutes a night so naturally being on the ice half the game against stiffer competition means he'll be on the ice for more goals against. And yet he's battling through it and leading his team in offence, convenient you ignored that. He looked great assisting on the game 7 OT winner

Erik Karlsson a 'trainwreck' defensively? Please, he single-handedly willed a mediocre team to the conference finals just 2 seasons ago. Would gladly take Karlsson for 10-11M on a long term deal.

EDIT: Forgot to add that Martin Jones was taking heat earlier in the series for letting in quite a few soft goals, nothing a dman can do when a goalie lets in a harmless looking shot from a low % shooting location.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Remember when Nylander was better than Larkin? Feels so long ago.

One is a 40 point winger, the other is a near point per game center. Ok a bit of an exaggeration, but still.

Did you see his controller disconnected moment in Game 6?? It was bizarre.

Nylander clearly was near the end of his shift but was in the offensive zone with the puck right there but just stops playing as if his mom yelled for him to come home because the streetlights were on. Truly bizarre.

 

[The Zermanator]

Counter Marner or Matthews are the only young forwards worth talking Doughty if you're the Kings.

Honestly I'd consider trading Matthews for Doughty. You take a hit on remaining good years for sure, but as far as core goes Doughty still fits well with Tavares now in the mix. Those two leading the charge with Marner and Rielly backing them up just seems like a better overall team composition than their current front heavy lineup.

Downside like I said is that Matthews is nearly a decade younger. But I would see this as them moving into their Cup window now rather than needing a couple more years to round out their roster. Salary-wise Matthews/Doughty is a wash so that's neither good nor bad. But on the positive side for Toronto, Doughty-Rielly would be an absolutely monster 1st pair, the best in the league without a doubt. But they could also split them up and have an elite dman on two separate lines, with Doughty's pair taking the tougher defensive matchups and Rielly getting more offensive opportunities against lesser competition. And with Tavares/Marner/Nylander they still have plenty of firepower up front.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You would likely be surprised if you read the league rulebook. I have no problem with the major being handed out. The problem really is to do it they needed the original call and neither official had their hand up.

But taking serious injury into account is in the league rulebook and has been my entire life. Eakins is committing two infractions when he injured Pavelski seriously raising it to a major level penalty. It was a selfish cheapshot by Eakins and they paid dearly for it.

Best end of a game I have seen in ages, super tired today.

What are the two infractions? I see a crosscheck.

And it's a crosscheck for sure but I don't know that I'd even call it a cheapshot. It was harder than most but every faceoff guys try to neutralize their opponent. Especially in Game 7.

Unless Pavelski has some chest injury I've not heard about Eakins did not injure him. Eakins crosschecked him and knocked him off balance, Pavelski falls backwards into another player and lands awkwardly on the ice. I still honestly dont' know exactly what cut him. If it was a result of the cage he was wearing or what.

But the rule for a major is about the crosscheck directly causing the injury. Not from the resulting fall. Otherwise Foegele should've been given a 5 minute major and ejection for his crosscheck on Oshie instead of the 2 minute minor. It wasn't that bad of a crosscheck but the resulting fall broke Oshie's collarbone. But that's not how the rule is called.

 

[Shaman464]

First of all, he is battling through a groin injury which affects his skating. Despite this, he's playing an average of 27 minutes a night so naturally being on the ice half the game against stiffer competition means he'll be on the ice for more goals against. And yet he's battling through it and leading his team in offence, convenient you ignored that. He looked great assisting on the game 7 OT winner

Erik Karlsson a 'trainwreck' defensively? Please, he single-handedly willed a mediocre team to the conference finals just 2 seasons ago. Would gladly take Karlsson for 10-11M on a long term deal.

EDIT: Forgot to add that Martin Jones was taking heat earlier in the series for letting in quite a few soft goals, nothing a dman can do when a goalie lets in a harmless looking shot from a low % shooting location.

So you're blaming injuries and the goalie. He was 2nd pairing. The first pairing, who faced the best competition weren't anywhere near as bad. In fact the rest of the team let 6 goals. That is 3 times less goals during the 33 minutes a night he wasn't on. You can't blame that on the goalie, because then it would be Karlsson on for 45% of the goals against, not 75%. There is no case for it being on Jones. And Burns averaged over 30 minutes a game and wasn't on ice for nearly as many goals against.

Why pay 80 million dollars for a guy that you have to blame the goalie and injuries for being tragically bad defensively?

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Karlsson made a nice play on the OT goal but people are forgetting that a few minutes earlier he turned the puck over at the offensive blueline and the only thing keeping it from being a clean breakaway for Vegas was he was able to interfere. And in OT of game 7 the refs don't have the guts to call that.

He wasn't this stud for all of OT that seems to be becoming the narrative now. It was very much a mixed bag.

 

[plymouthmi]

You would likely be surprised if you read the league rulebook. I have no problem with the major being handed out. The problem really is to do it they needed the original call and neither official had their hand up.

But taking serious injury into account is in the league rulebook and has been my entire life. Eakins is committing two infractions when he injured Pavelski seriously raising it to a major level penalty. It was a selfish cheapshot by Eakins and they paid dearly for it.

Best end of a game I have seen in ages, super tired today.

But I don't think it is in the current NHL rulebook that an injury automatically makes that a major, unless I'm missing something. Rule 59.3 under Cross-Checking says "Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent." There are other penalties, like slashing, that do specifically say a major must be given if there's an injury (Rule 61.3 under Slashing: "Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who slashes an opponent. When injury occurs, a major penalty must be assessed under this rule").

Of course, as other have said the bottom line is that you can't just fall apart even if you think it was a bad call and allow 4 goals.

 

[Red Stanley]

But I don't think it is in the current NHL rulebook that an injury automatically makes that a major, unless I'm missing something. Rule 59.3 under Cross-Checking says "Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent." There are other penalties, like slashing, that do specifically say a major must be given if there's an injury (Rule 61.3 under Slashing: "Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who slashes an opponent. When injury occurs, a major penalty must be assessed under this rule").

Of course, as other have said the bottom line is that you can't just fall apart even if you think it was a bad call and allow 4 goals.

Yes, but the injury wasn't a direct result of the crosscheck, which was fairly pedestrian in and of itself. It warranted a minor penalty at best, not a major and a game misconduct.

 

[plymouthmi]

Yes, but the injury wasn't a direct result of the crosscheck, which was fairly pedestrian in and of itself. It warranted a minor penalty at best, not a major and a game misconduct.

We agree actually. I guess that wasn't clear in my post but I don't think it should have been a major.

I was just posting the actual rule because I've seen people say injury means there must be a major, which I don't think is true based on the rulebook as written.

 

[Flowah]

Counter Marner or Matthews are the only young forwards worth talking Doughty if you're the Kings.

Yeah trading a core #1 d-man for what looks like a complementary top6 winger? Who does that?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

What are the two infractions? I see a crosscheck.

And it's a crosscheck for sure but I don't know that I'd even call it a cheapshot. It was harder than most but every faceoff guys try to neutralize their opponent. Especially in Game 7.

Unless Pavelski has some chest injury I've not heard about Eakins did not injure him. Eakins crosschecked him and knocked him off balance, Pavelski falls backwards into another player and lands awkwardly on the ice. I still honestly dont' know exactly what cut him. If it was a result of the cage he was wearing or what.

But the rule for a major is about the crosscheck directly causing the injury. Not from the resulting fall. Otherwise Foegele should've been given a 5 minute major and ejection for his crosscheck on Oshie instead of the 2 minute minor. It wasn't that bad of a crosscheck but the resulting fall broke Oshie's collarbone. But that's not how the rule is called.

It's a cross check on a player without the puck so it is also interference.

If you don't crosscheck somebody like that he isn't falling out of control. He wasn't eligible to be hit and he did it anyway. Per the NHL rulebook the end action of that penalty can escalate if serious injury happens and the contact is deemed hard enough to have made that result. They don't enforce it a lot, but be sure it does exist in their own rulebook and did well before last night.

Foegele could have been given one, the same rules could have applied. Just like more controversially given the nature of the sucker punch but it didn't matter if Bertuzzi presented that the dogpile could have been just as responsible for the injuries Moore suffered his initial illegal play set in sequence the whole incident.

He made an illegal play that resulted in serious injury, that can elevate into a five minute major and it did. Eakin shouldn't be taking that chance in a 3-0 lead. Again I understand those that see it another way, but per the rulebook the application of a five minute major.

I have said since it happened my bigger problem was neither guy had it until he was down and out on the ice. But actually if you asked me to review it with replay I would have given him the gate. He hits him with enough force that he cannot control what is happening next and it results in a serious injury which is taken into account when applying majors. People can want the action alone and not result punished but that isn't actually the rulebook. Tough break but ultimately Eakin was doing something stupid and the Knights paid dearly for it.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Yeah trading a core #1 d-man for what looks like a complementary top6 winger? Who does that?

I don't think the Kings would do it. My point was more leading with Nylander is laughable in that conversation, especially after the year he had.

If I am the Kings I would consider it for Matthews for sure. But when have we seen players of this caliber move.... The hole created by moving him with the Leafs also doesn't make them favorites in their own division still in my opinion.

 

[Red Stanley]

It's a cross check on a player without the puck so it is also interference.

If you don't crosscheck somebody like that he isn't falling out of control. He wasn't eligible to be hit and he did it anyway. Per the NHL rulebook the end action of that penalty can escalate if serious injury happens and the contact is deemed hard enough to have made that result. They don't enforce it a lot, but be sure it does exist in their own rulebook and did well before last night.

Foegele could have been given one, the same rules could have applied. Just like more controversially given the nature of the sucker punch but it didn't matter if Bertuzzi presented that the dogpile could have been just as responsible for the injuries Moore suffered his initial illegal play set in sequence the whole incident.

He made an illegal play that resulted in serious injury, that can elevate into a five minute major and it did. Eakin shouldn't be taking that chance in a 3-0 lead. Again I understand those that see it another way, but per the rulebook the application of a five minute major.

I have said since it happened my bigger problem was neither guy had it until he was down and out on the ice. But actually if you asked me to review it with replay I would have given him the gate. He hits him with enough force that he cannot control what is happening next and it results in a serious injury which is taken into account when applying majors. People can want the action alone and not result punished but that isn't actually the rulebook. Tough break but ultimately Eakin was doing something stupid and the Knights paid dearly for it.

I agree it was a stupid and selfish penalty to take. I disagree about it being interference. It happened a split second after both players had battled at the face off circle, so it was more or less part of the play, just overaggressive. Also, the injury wasn't a direct result of the crosscheck, so that shouldn't have figured into the decision. Eakin didn't push him directly into the boards or into another player. The resulting injury was completely incidental. It was a terrible call, imo. Should've been a 2min minor.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It's a cross check on a player without the puck so it is also interference.

If you don't crosscheck somebody like that he isn't falling out of control. He wasn't eligible to be hit and he did it anyway. Per the NHL rulebook the end action of that penalty can escalate if serious injury happens and the contact is deemed hard enough to have made that result. They don't enforce it a lot, but be sure it does exist in their own rulebook and did well before last night.

Foegele could have been given one, the same rules could have applied. Just like more controversially given the nature of the sucker punch but it didn't matter if Bertuzzi presented that the dogpile could have been just as responsible for the injuries Moore suffered his initial illegal play set in sequence the whole incident.

He made an illegal play that resulted in serious injury, that can elevate into a five minute major and it did. Eakin shouldn't be taking that chance in a 3-0 lead. Again I understand those that see it another way, but per the rulebook the application of a five minute major.

I have said since it happened my bigger problem was neither guy had it until he was down and out on the ice. But actually if you asked me to review it with replay I would have given him the gate. He hits him with enough force that he cannot control what is happening next and it results in a serious injury which is taken into account when applying majors. People can want the action alone and not result punished but that isn't actually the rulebook. Tough break but ultimately Eakin was doing something stupid and the Knights paid dearly for it.

By the rulebook that's not interference. That's a crosscheck.

I'm not familiar with the rule you're referring to about it escalating to serious injury but would like to see it. Here's the rule on crosschecking from the 2019 rulebook regarding a major penalty.

59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent.

59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5).

59.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by cross-checking.

59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

The severity of the contact clearly does not warrant a major penalty. While it is definitely a crosscheck, the major is typically reserved for things like crosschecks to the head, throat, etc. that are a clear attempt to inflict significant injury. Not to a player's chest. (see the Kadri penalty).

There isn't any obvious intent by Eakins to injure Pavelski that takes this outside the minor penalty provision. He's crosschecking him after a faceoff forcing him backwards, but again he's not going outside the bounds of a fairly routine crosscheck. The injury resulted from Pavelski falling backwards and awkwardly on the ice. There is zero question that the crosscheck itself did not in any way caused the head injury to Pavelski.

The Bertuzzi incident is not comparable. He stalked a player from behind, repeatedly tried to get him to fight, then suckerpunched him from behind. Moore was clearly unconscious from the moment Bertuzzi hit him. So regardless of what Bert tried to blame for the extent of the spinal injuries, it is clear that Bertuzzi's punch itself was enough to render Moore concussed and unconscious and was a clear attempt to injure an opponent.

Like it or not, a suckerpunch from behind is not a routine occurrence in a hockey game whereas a crosscheck to the chest is, especially in the playoffs.

The refs blew this call.

 

[ZDH]

I don't think the Kings would do it. My point was more leading with Nylander is laughable in that conversation, especially after the year he had.

If I am the Kings I would consider it for Matthews for sure. But when have we seen players of this caliber move.... The hole created by moving him with the Leafs also doesn't make them favorites in their own division still in my opinion.

Matthew's trade value>>>>Doughty's trade value

The Kings pull the trigger on this in a heartbeat.

 

[ZDH]

Refs blew the call but LV blew a 3-1 series lead as well as a 3-0 game 7 lead w 10 minutes left.

0 sympathy.

 

[Legion34]

It's a cross check on a player without the puck so it is also interference.

If you don't crosscheck somebody like that he isn't falling out of control. He wasn't eligible to be hit and he did it anyway. Per the NHL rulebook the end action of that penalty can escalate if serious injury happens and the contact is deemed hard enough to have made that result. They don't enforce it a lot, but be sure it does exist in their own rulebook and did well before last night.

Foegele could have been given one, the same rules could have applied. Just like more controversially given the nature of the sucker punch but it didn't matter if Bertuzzi presented that the dogpile could have been just as responsible for the injuries Moore suffered his initial illegal play set in sequence the whole incident.

He made an illegal play that resulted in serious injury, that can elevate into a five minute major and it did. Eakin shouldn't be taking that chance in a 3-0 lead. Again I understand those that see it another way, but per the rulebook the application of a five minute major.

I have said since it happened my bigger problem was neither guy had it until he was down and out on the ice. But actually if you asked me to review it with replay I would have given him the gate. He hits him with enough force that he cannot control what is happening next and it results in a serious injury which is taken into account when applying majors. People can want the action alone and not result punished but that isn't actually the rulebook. Tough break but ultimately Eakin was doing something stupid and the Knights paid dearly for it.

He fell like 10 steps and then ran into another guy on the way down and hit his head

I mean how long does it last? If he kept doing the chicken dance for the rest of the game and slipped in the shower is it still his fault?

The rule book isn’t for that at all....

There was secondary incidental contact that caused the issue.

It was brutal. Everyone knows it was brutal

 

[Red Stanley]

Matthew's trade value>>>>Doughty's trade value

The Kings pull the trigger on this in a heartbeat.

Especially since the Kings appear to be looking at a rebuild after the Vegas sweep and this year's disaster of a season.

 

[Snuggs]

Kind of pulling for the Sharks now over the remaining teams to be honest.

Big time come back, like someone posted above. Don't feel bad for Vegas.