Free Agents and Trade Thread - Offseason on Hold Edition

[SeaOfBlue]

Was St Louis the most physical team in the playoffs last season or were they the most talented?

Neither?

 

[Kurtz]

Neither?

Not quite. They were notorious for being the most physical team that ground the opponent down over the stretch of the series.

This argument pops up here every month or so. One side will say that we're too soft. The other will say that that doesn't matter and skill wins. Ultimately we end up concluding that you ideally want a balance of both.

 

[Magic Man]

Grit doesn't beat teams. Talent does

I think it helps but I agree with you. We're going to spank the Blue Jackets. Dubas is a good GM and the Leafs are a good team.

 

[stickty111]

Was St Louis the most physical team in the playoffs last season or were they the most talented?

More talented then the Bruins for sure.

 

[rent free]

Talented more then the Bruins for sure.

so we're less talented than the bruins?

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Not quite. They were notorious for being the most physical team that ground the opponent down over the stretch of the series.

This argument pops up here every month or so. One side will say that we're too soft. The other will say that that doesn't matter and skill wins. Ultimately we end up concluding that you ideally want a balance of both.

There are six things I think you realistically need to win a Cup:

1) Skill.
2) Hot Goalie.
3) Smart Coach and players, hopefully with some experience.
4) Guys who won't take a shift off.
5) Guys who can take away/generate space for themselves and teammates.
6) Luck.

Physicality does not make that list, but it can help you do #5. However, it is definitely not the only way to do that. Speed, smarts and skill does that too. That's why Hyman is an incredibly tough player to play against. Physical players are also guys who will often not take a shift off, but you should not have anyone taking a shift off regardless of who they are so that is irrelevant.

So in the grand scheme of a successful playoff team, physicality is drastically overrated. It's an extremely small part of the pie. Nobody has won a Cup because they were physical. It's just a shiny thing that makes the game more entertaining and riles the crowd up, so fans think it is important.

And if you want to look at it from the Leafs perspective and why they have lost in the first round:
1) Andersen has had some stinkers at inopportune times which prevented us in at least one or two of our series.
2) Babcock has made a lot of questionable decisions and there have been stupid plays make by some players (i.e. Kadri and Gardiner) which seriously hindered our chances at winning. We also lacked some experience early on, but that shouldn't be an issue anymore.
3) Guys who take shifts off, which we really need to fix.
4) We've had some rotten luck too.

If you think that Boston or Washington's physicality was the reason why we lost those series, I do not know what to tell you. It was insignificant at best, and a really small piece of the pie that comprises a Cup winning team.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

so we're less talented than the bruins?

Is that what was said?

 

[Menzinger]

Best of luck to Tima.

Glad threafs got a few games of use from him, but he seemed destined to be a permanent 13/14th forward

 

[Kurtz]

There are six things I think you realistically need to win a Cup:

1) Skill.
2) Hot Goalie.
3) Smart Coach and players, hopefully with some experience.
4) Guys who won't take a shift off.
5) Guys who can take away/generate space for themselves and teammates.
6) Luck.

Physicality does not make that list, but it can help you do #5. However, it is definitely not the only way to do that. Speed, smarts and skill does that too. That's why Hyman is an incredibly tough player to play against. Physical players are also guys who will often not take a shift off, but you should not have anyone taking a shift off regardless of who they are so that is irrelevant.

So in the grand scheme of a successful playoff team, physicality is drastically overrated. It's an extremely small part of the pie. Nobody has won a Cup because they were physical. It's just a shiny thing that makes the game more entertaining and riles the crowd up, so fans think it is important.

And if you want to look at it from the Leafs perspective and why they have lost in the first round:
1) Andersen has had some stinkers at inopportune times which prevented us in at least one or two of our series.
2) Babcock has made a lot of questionable decisions and there have been stupid plays make by some players (i.e. Kadri and Gardiner) which seriously hindered our chances at winning. We also lacked some experience early on, but that shouldn't be an issue anymore.
3) Guys who take shifts off, which we really need to fix.
4) We've had some rotten luck too.

If you think that Boston or Washington's physicality was the reason why we lost those series, I do not know what to tell you. It was insignificant at best, and a really small piece of the pie that comprises a Cup winning team.

I would disagree with some of that. St Louis was the most physical team in the league last year - not the most skilled. The only other team that was close to their physicality was Columbus, and Columbus swept the most skilled team in the league last season in Tampa. Boston wasn't overly physical last year - they had a good balance of skill and grit, and St Louis did take physical control as that series wore on.

Anyway, I think to win you need to be a well-rounded team, which includes physical play. Dubas acquiring Clifford is proof of his recognition that he erred in building a soft team.

 

[rent free]

our own players need to be tough as well. we can't just be trading for tough bottom-6 players. our big-4 and rielly are soft as balls. they need to toughen up and stop being wimps.

 

[Dekes For Days]

St Louis was the most physical team in the league last year

St Louis was 24th in the league in hits last year... 10th out of 16 teams in the playoffs (lower than the Leafs).

The only other team that was close to their physicality was Columbus

Columbus was 21st...

and Columbus swept the most skilled team in the league last season in Tampa.

Columbus swept a team (that placed 6th in hits that year - much higher than Columbus) that had their most important players injured/not playing/sucking, after Columbus loaded up on skill at the deadline. Tampa outhit Columbus by a considerable amount in that series.

Dubas acquiring Clifford is proof of his recognition that he erred in building a soft team.

This is not proof of anything. Leafs actually outhit Boston in their series last year.

 

[Magic Man]

I would disagree with some of that. St Louis was the most physical team in the league last year - not the most skilled. The only other team that was close to their physicality was Columbus, and Columbus swept the most skilled team in the league last season in Tampa. Boston wasn't overly physical last year - they had a good balance of skill and grit, and St Louis did take physical control as that series wore on.

Anyway, I think to win you need to be a well-rounded team, which includes physical play. Dubas acquiring Clifford is proof of his recognition that he erred in building a soft team.

I agree that is proof. He signed a below average back-up because he had no money left over and didn't value the position. So, he paid a hefty price to bring in a really good one. In the same trade he brought in Clifford, a grinder that can play to make up for an unbalanced roster. The team played different immediately. Good on him for at least addressing his mistakes.

 

[Isaac Nootin]

St Louis was 24th in the league in hits last year... 10th out of 16 teams in the playoffs (lower than the Leafs).

Columbus was 21st...

Columbus swept a team (that placed 6th in hits that year - much higher than Columbus) that had their most important players injured/not playing/sucking, after Columbus loaded up on skill at the deadline. Tampa outhit Columbus by a considerable amount in that series.

This is not proof of anything. Leafs actually outhit Boston in their series last year.

This.

However it's an easy branch (physicality) for the lazy posters and Dubas haters to latch on to.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I agree that is proof. He signed a below average back-up because he had no money left over and didn't value the position. So, he paid a hefty price to bring in a really good one. In the same trade he brought in Clifford, a grinder that can play to make up for an unbalanced roster. The team played different immediately. Good on him for at least addressing his mistakes.

A mid-late 3rd is not a hefty price for a backup, especially not a good one on a great contract for 2.5 more years. 2 rounds lower gets you a rental backup who sucks (i.e. Hutch, Kinkaid, etc.)

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I would disagree with some of that. St Louis was the most physical team in the league last year - not the most skilled. The only other team that was close to their physicality was Columbus, and Columbus swept the most skilled team in the league last season in Tampa. Boston wasn't overly physical last year - they had a good balance of skill and grit, and St Louis did take physical control as that series wore on.

Anyway, I think to win you need to be a well-rounded team, which includes physical play. Dubas acquiring Clifford is proof of his recognition that he erred in building a soft team.

In what way was St. Louis one of the most physical teams last year? Even then, being a more physical team does not mean that it was the reason they won anything. There were a lot of other things - far more important things - that lead to St. Louis winning than their physicality.

And I like how people equate grit to physicality. You can be gritty and work hard without driving players through the boards or being super physical. Is Hyman not gritty? Is Kapanen not gritty? They don't run people through the boards but they sure as hell are more effective when it comes to the more important things associated with the positives of physicality, like play along the boards and closing out gaps.

Now I understand that players who are half-assing it on the ice are not desirable, especially when it comes to the playoffs, but there is a huge misconception about what is truly important to a winning cup team if you think that physicality is a key element of winning. Columbus did not beat Tampa because they were more physical. In fact, Josh Anderson were crap in the playoffs last year. I wouldn't say he was useless, but he was definitely not the reason they won anything. That was Bobrovsky, Duchene, Atkinson, Panarin, etc. None of those guys have a physical bone in their body. We did not lose to Boston because they were a bigger team.

I won't be as harsh as saying it is a "lazy" way to define success, but I think it is misinterpreted way of defining success.

 

[Gabriel426]

I think being intimidating is more important than being physical.
Beside having better goaltending and capitalizing chances. Cup Winners are all tough to play against, but that’s not limit to being more physical than the other team.
Teams being physical is just one factor to intimidate the other teams. If Leafs stood up to guys like Wilson, Ovie, Chara, Merchand....the Series could ended differently.
The other thing is players stepping up, for the past three playoffs, our players had their moments but the other teams had more. That could be down to coaching-like Babs using Leo more than anybody else, lack of in game adjustments, or just players not finding that extra gear.
These young Leafs just need to stand up for each other and understand they have each other backs.

 

[biotk]

I would disagree with some of that. St Louis was the most physical team in the league last year - not the most skilled. The only other team that was close to their physicality was Columbus, and Columbus swept the most skilled team in the league last season in Tampa.

This is true. People who watched the games should know this.

I understand that I brought up hits, mainly because I thought it was amusing, but that is not to say that physicality is equal to hit totals. Especially when the statistics is recorded very inconsistently between teams. The Leafs' need some players that can throw some big hits to get into the heads of opposing players, but the Blues didn't just have some guys who could throw some big hits. They used their physical presence all over the ice. They didn't give up an inch of space. They won board battles. They didn't let you set up camp in front in their net. They cycled and broke up cycles. And they would stand up for their teammates 100% of the time no matter what instead of just coasting by.

Every opposing team knows that Toronto are a bunch of cream puffs.

Sandin is not a physical player, but he has thrown some big hits, and if you go by the frequency of his hits he is in the top 3rd for NHL D (behind only Muzzin on the Leafs). Way more than Chara, or Parayko and way, way, way more than Pietro - who are all much more physical D.

 

[Kurtz]

St Louis was 24th in the league in hits last year... 10th out of 16 teams in the playoffs (lower than the Leafs).

Columbus was 21st...

Columbus swept a team (that placed 6th in hits that year - much higher than Columbus) that had their most important players injured/not playing/sucking, after Columbus loaded up on skill at the deadline. Tampa outhit Columbus by a considerable amount in that series.

This is not proof of anything. Leafs actually outhit Boston in their series last year.

Seriously, did people not watch the playoffs last year? St Louis and Columbus were incredibly physical (for the modern game). If you don't recall, feel free to ask the general board who the most physical team/teams were last year...

Hit counts are not an exact proxy for a team's physicality, as they're subject to the whims of the home scorekeeper, they're not all created equal, and they don't measure overall team physicality like crease protection, cycling and overall board-work, etc.

The year before, Washington was one of the most physical teams in the league as well, btw.

Why do you think the Leafs acquired Clifford? For his skill?

 

[stickty111]

I would disagree with some of that. St Louis was the most physical team in the league last year - not the most skilled. The only other team that was close to their physicality was Columbus, and Columbus swept the most skilled team in the league last season in Tampa. Boston wasn't overly physical last year - they had a good balance of skill and grit, and St Louis did take physical control as that series wore on.

Anyway, I think to win you need to be a well-rounded team, which includes physical play. Dubas acquiring Clifford is proof of his recognition that he erred in building a soft team.

St. Louis was not the most physical team. They won because they were a deep team in all positions, and a good coach.
Dubas has been trying to get Clifford for some time, so the recognition doesn't apply here.

I agree that is proof. He signed a below average back-up because he had no money left over and didn't value the position. So, he paid a hefty price to bring in a really good one. In the same trade he brought in Clifford, a grinder that can play to make up for an unbalanced roster. The team played different immediately. Good on him for at least addressing his mistakes.

A 3rd is not a big price and nor is Moore who is a 4th liner.
Clifford didn't do anything. The team just changed their mindset. Do you not remember the Detroit game where all players went head hunting, and all 5 Leafs players responded back? This was before Clifford came in. Dubas didn't address the mistake when he didn't have it in the first place.

 

[Gabriel426]

This is true. People who watched the games should know this.

I understand that I brought up hits, mainly because I thought it was amusing, but that is not to say that physicality is equal to hit totals. Especially when the statistics is recorded very inconsistently between teams. The Leafs' need some players that can throw some big hits to get into the heads of opposing players, but the Blues didn't just have some guys who could throw some big hits. They used their physical presence all over the ice. They didn't give up an inch of space. They won board battles. They didn't let you set up camp in front in their net. They cycled and broke up cycles. And they would stand up for their teammates 100% of the time no matter what instead of just coasting by.

Every opposing team knows that Toronto are a bunch of cream puffs.

Sandin is not a physical player, but he has thrown some big hits, and if you go by the frequency of his hits he is in the top 3rd for NHL D (behind only Muzzin on the Leafs). Way more than Chara, or Parayko and way, way, way more than Pietro - who are all much more physical D.

That’s the key. Leafs is known for being a soft team around the League. Team with no fight in them. They just need to start sticking out and standing up for each other, something I am seeing more and more under Keefe. Maybe Clifford coming over and Muzzin leadership(resigning and letting players know he will be around for a few more years), are starting to rub off on other players. Don’t remembered was this game before or after the Clifford trade but I remembered at the end of one game both Hyman and JT fought someone on the other team, another incident in another game was Sandin getting ran over, Matthews and others jumped in and had a little scrum. Those might be small signs but signs that shows these young Leafs are starting to band together. Maybe it is a good thing to have guys a few years younger than Matthews, Willie, Kap and Marner to be on the team, that way they will feel like they need to take care and lead young guys instead of being taken care of by vets.

 

[stickty111]

Seriously, did people not watch the playoffs last year? St Louis and Columbus were incredibly physical (for the modern game). If you don't recall, feel free to ask the general board who the most physical team/teams were last year...

Hit counts are not an exact proxy for a team's physicality, as they're subject to the whims of the home scorekeeper, they're not all created equal, and they don't measure overall team physicality like crease protection, cycling and overall board-work, etc.

The year before, Washington was one of the most physical teams in the league as well, btw.

Why do you think the Leafs acquired Clifford? For his skill?

They acquired him because he is a decent role player who can play a regular shift. As a bonus, he brings leadership and some physicallity. If people are so certain Dubas brought him in for physicality, Dubas could just sign a 4th line enforcer who only hits

 

[Dekes For Days]

that is not to say that physicality is equal to hit totals.

So physicality is super duper important in terms of results, but it, and it's impacts, cannot be measured in any way (at least when the stats say the opposite of what you want)? Seems like a pretty questionable position.

Especially when the statistics is recorded very inconsistently between teams.

St Louis was still 24th in hits last season when looking at only away games. Tampa was 1st.
In playoff road games, St Louis was 9th out of 16 teams; below Toronto and Tampa.

 

[Kurtz]

And I like how people equate grit to physicality. You can be gritty and work hard without driving players through the boards or being super physical. Is Hyman not gritty? Is Kapanen not gritty? They don't run people through the boards but they sure as hell are more effective when it comes to the more important things associated with the positives of physicality, like play along the boards and closing out gaps.

Grit and physicality are of the same domain. Hyman is an incredibly physical player - he plays the Blues style. Kapanen's grit comes and goes. That's the issue - when you go down the list of our physical players and you're forced to stop after Hyman and Kapanen, you can see where the problem lies.

 

[Dekes For Days]

If you don't recall, feel free to ask the general board who the most physical team/teams were last year...

Yes, because the main board is just a fountain of unbiased and accurate hockey knowledge...

The year before, Washington was one of the most physical teams in the league as well, btw.

Actually, before they won, the perception of them was that they were soft and playoff chokers. Funny how narratives change once a team wins.

Why do you think the Leafs acquired Clifford? For his skill?

To add a different element to the bottom 6 at a good cost as part of a bigger deal, and because Dubas was familiar with the particular player.

 

[Magic Man]

A mid-late 3rd is not a hefty price for a backup, especially not a good one on a great contract for 2.5 more years. 2 rounds lower gets you a rental backup who sucks (i.e. Hutch, Kinkaid, etc.)

That 3rd would have been a 2nd if they finished the season. Pretty healthy package overall for limited players. I actually like the move.