Hindsight is 20/20, were these the right decisions?

Leafsman

I guess $11M doesn't buy you what it use to
May 22, 2008
3,412
588
I think what Boston did was put Toronto in their place, despite what most Leaf fans (and management?) believed Toronto is still a rebuilding team. With that said let us look back on these decisions,

Marleau (3yr contract ending 2019-20 @ 6.25m/yr) - There is no doubt Toronto paid extra for his experience but was his experience worth sitting Leivo the entire year or not being able to call up a Marlie?

2nd Round Draft picks - Boyle and Plekanec, each costing Toronto a 2nd round pick and both were unable to move the needle, even in the slightest. Dermott, Grundstrom, Korshkov are to name a very few 2nd round picks Toronto have made

Keeping JVR/Bozak/Komarov: I have no idea what value Toronto would have gotten for these players, but it certainly is going to be more when these players walk (I'm of the opinion of letting them walk. I would be interested in Bozak playing 4C and 4C money).

They had to give it a go with these players to assess how to play the offseason and make a strategy going forward.

If they had of made a dent in the playoffs, then they likely would have planned for a future with JVR/Bozak but are now likely looking at a different plan.

This post-season strategy was a test to determine the current stage in the Leafs rebuild. Unfortunetaly, it looks like we are a bit early still. Though, I'd likely argue we are on right on track and most people had too high of expectations and thought we were further ahead than we actually were.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
They had to give it a go with these players to assess how to play the offseason and make a strategy going forward.

If they had of made a dent in the playoffs, then they likely would have planned for a future with JVR/Bozak but are now likely looking at a different plan.

This post-season strategy was a test to determine the current stage in the Leafs rebuild. Unfortunetaly, it looks like we are a bit early still. Though, I'd likely argue we are on right on track and most people had too high of expectations and thought we were further ahead than we actually were.

Was a premature test. Jvr bozak komarov should have been moved over the past 2 years. That would have us with some picks ready to potentially enter the league next season already.

They got anxious, they gambled, they lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToMaLe

ShaneFalco

Registered User
Jul 15, 2012
21,414
15,770
London, On
Was a premature test. Jvr bozak komarov should have been moved over the past 2 years
Maybe not Bozak just because of the lack of depth at C, but hanging on to guys when the team has some big holes to fill, just seems like the wrong move. We'll see how they address things now
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
Maybe not Bozak just because of the lack of depth at C, but hanging on to guys when the team has some big holes to fill, just seems like the wrong move. We'll see how they address things now

You can almost predict it. It won't be a high price UFA forward with term. It'll be Nylander to C unless Babcock refuses. Any short term deal would be a step back unless it's Bozak, but Bozak blocks other potential C.

We are boxed in, Matthews Marner and Nylander are all getting raises.
 

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
23,736
11,002
Was a premature test. Jvr bozak komarov should have been moved over the past 2 years. That would have us with some picks ready to potentially enter the league next season already.

They got anxious, they gambled, they lost.
Here is what Babcock said:
I don’t think we are at the point where we want to be where when the puck drops in September you know you are in the playoffs. We are not at that point. We don’t have enough depth yet. In saying that, we’re going in the right direction. We’re just going to stay the course with our plan and keep adding pieces as best as we possibly can so we have the depth to do it year after year.

They should have had an idea about the test outcome.
Many of us have been saying this for a while. Letting a 30 goal scorer walk and (let's see what happens with Gardiner) is not the way to improve this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToMaLe

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
Here is what Babcock said:
I don’t think we are at the point where we want to be where when the puck drops in September you know you are in the playoffs. We are not at that point. We don’t have enough depth yet. In saying that, we’re going in the right direction. We’re just going to stay the course with our plan and keep adding pieces as best as we possibly can so we have the depth to do it year after year.

They should have had an idea about the test outcome.
Many of us have been saying this for a while. Letting a 30 goal scorer walk and (let's see what happens with Gardiner) is not the way to improve this.

The Babcock quote about depth is comedy gold. Sounds like an afterthought and gear change considering prior to the PO he was talking about spending to the moon.

I don't think he is so dumb as to not know that you can't spend your picks and grow depth. If he believes this, take away any and all roster change input from his stupid ass and dictate who he plays and tell him to make it work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToMaLe

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
23,736
11,002
The Babcock quote about depth is comedy gold. Sounds like an afterthought and gear change considering prior to the PO he was talking about spending to the moon.

I don't think he is so dumb as to not know that you can't spend your picks and grow depth. If he believes this, take away any and all roster change input from his stupid ass and dictate who he plays and tell him to make it work.
You can add his comedy gold to "knowing when to move on from players".
Pretty much what he said this year, they did the opposite.
You identify certain players of value and then make the appropriate decisions.
For me the 5 year plan would have consisted of:
1. Kessel (he was moved) 1st (Andersen) + Kappy
2. Phaneuf (moved as cap dump)
3. grace period (we used a 2nd for Boyle which I'm fine with) The kids were new, it was an exciting time, the reward was justified. A one time thing.
4. JVR (moved in the summer) Kappy now full time. Leivo/Johnsson get 40 games to get used to the NHL.
5. Lupul contract expires (cap) Gardiner (if you are not keeping him, move him)

Those were your maximum assets to acquire a stable of depth. From centers to D to used as currency for the big club. Bozak/Komarov/etc. are lower level guys. We needed centers and PK players so there was no issue keeping them. Moving any of the above to build assets and give young guys the opportunities does not come off to me as tanking/bad message/not competing/etc. Leivo scratched 90% of the year was not good. Each year the young guys know there is competition spots.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
You can add his comedy gold to "knowing when to move on from players".
Pretty much what he said this year, they did the opposite.
You identify certain players of value and then make the appropriate decisions.
For me the 5 year plan would have consisted of:
1. Kessel (he was moved) 1st (Andersen) + Kappy
2. Phaneuf (moved as cap dump)
3. grace period (we used a 2nd for Boyle which I'm fine with) The kids were new, it was an exciting time, the reward was justified. A one time thing.
4. JVR (moved in the summer) Kappy now full time. Leivo/Johnsson get 40 games to get used to the NHL.
5. Lupul contract expires (cap) Gardiner (if you are not keeping him, move him)

Those were your maximum assets to acquire a stable of depth. From centers to D to used as currency for the big club. Bozak/Komarov/etc. are lower level guys. We needed centers and PK players so there was no issue keeping them. Moving any of the above to build assets and give young guys the opportunities does not come off to me as tanking/bad message/not competing/etc. Leivo scratched 90% of the year was not good. Each year the young guys know there is competition spots.

Right, logical moves with sound reasoning and easy to defend in the face of scrutiny. We are just passengers here hoping to party in June.
 

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
23,736
11,002
Right, logical moves with sound reasoning and easy to defend in the face of scrutiny. We are just passengers here hoping to party in June.
I am super huge on asset management. So I've been on this train from day one. I can come back and preach after the fact something I strongly believe in from day one.
I try to avoid the Hyman with Matthews, Bozak vs. Kadri, Gardiner/Andersen cost us debates. These are in the moment things. Sometimes putting player A with B works and sometimes it doesn't. Those are more face of scrutiny things to me.
 

LeafGrief

Shambles in my brain
Apr 10, 2015
7,616
9,532
Ottawa
You can add his comedy gold to "knowing when to move on from players".
Pretty much what he said this year, they did the opposite.
You identify certain players of value and then make the appropriate decisions.
For me the 5 year plan would have consisted of:
1. Kessel (he was moved) 1st (Andersen) + Kappy
2. Phaneuf (moved as cap dump)
3. grace period (we used a 2nd for Boyle which I'm fine with) The kids were new, it was an exciting time, the reward was justified. A one time thing.
4. JVR (moved in the summer) Kappy now full time. Leivo/Johnsson get 40 games to get used to the NHL.
5. Lupul contract expires (cap) Gardiner (if you are not keeping him, move him)

Those were your maximum assets to acquire a stable of depth. From centers to D to used as currency for the big club. Bozak/Komarov/etc. are lower level guys. We needed centers and PK players so there was no issue keeping them. Moving any of the above to build assets and give young guys the opportunities does not come off to me as tanking/bad message/not competing/etc. Leivo scratched 90% of the year was not good. Each year the young guys know there is competition spots.

While I don't think there is anything wrong with what you're proposing here in points 4 and 5, this is probably the most conservative plan you could possibly come up with. When your team has three young stars on ELC's and are surrounded by a bunch of other sophomores, playoffs are not a certainty (as your Babcock quote indicates) Trading JVR in the summer to give Marlies a chance is a move that makes a 2016/2017 bubble team worse heading into 2017/2018. Trading Gardiner for picks this summer makes a division contender 2017/2018 worse heading into 2019/2020. Making your team worse to stockpile draft picks and give Marlies a chance is great when you're in the early stages of your rebuild, but at some point your asset maximization needs to be balanced out against actual opportunities for success. When the Leafs were heading to training camp in fall 2017 and wondering if they make the playoffs this year, you have to ask yourself if giving your young core another playoff series or two is worth keeping Van Riemsdyk. Hell, just having a competitive team for 82 games might be worth keeping Van Riemsdyk around.

It's great to have lots of draft picks, but they bust all the time. I'd be thrilled to have an extra 1st+2nd right now, but those are players who might not make an impact on the Leafs until years 7 or 8 of the 5 year plan. Asset management is great, but you have to ask yourself what is going to give the Leafs a better chance of success over the short term as well. Last summer we were looking at a young Leafs team that was nowhere near a guarantee for the playoffs, but had also shown a lot of promise and could have been on the cusp of breaking out into a top team in the league. Similarly, this summer we are looking at a team that is on the cusp of being (just a top defenceman away) truly elite. Is getting the first round pick for Gardiner worth gambling our chance at being elite a year early? If it's the 10th overall from Edmonton, then sign me up, but if it's just another package of picks and prospects who are 3 years away from making an impact, then I'd rather keep Gardiner and take another run.

I also think that such a conservative approach is damaging to a young team. These are kids who are trying to get their legs under them in the NHL and build their confidence. I think that management constantly sabotaging a team's chances of winning is a terrible message to send to them. "You're not good enough yet". It may not seem like sabotage, because it's all part of the plan, but I really think that such a conservative approach isn't giving the players any credit. They're all young and talented and turned out to be the 6th place team in the league. This isn't poker where you fold and save your money until you have an unbeatable hand to win it all, players and teams have to be developed and experience is an asset that can sometimes be greater than another few draft picks. Even the dark horse goes on a magical cup run from time to time. The Leafs are already better than a dark horse, so sabotage be damned, let's make the NHL squad better today.
 

ShaneFalco

Registered User
Jul 15, 2012
21,414
15,770
London, On
Why is JVR always traded for draft picks that won't help the team for years?
And if that did happen, those draft picks can then be used for immediate help.
JVR scored goals but cost the team a lot too. Having moved on from him would have given others a shot. Maybe they don't score as many goals, but they probably don't allow as many and have to be as heavily sheltered as JVR.

If they let Gardiner walk after this year, that's 30 goal scorer and a top 4 d-man in 2 years. There's no way to sugar coat that.
And they are not currently a top defender away from being elite. Who plays #3 and #4 C this year? Hainsey looks like at 37, he's tired. Zaitsev has been sub-par for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToMaLe

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
I am super huge on asset management. So I've been on this train from day one. I can come back and preach after the fact something I strongly believe in from day one.
I try to avoid the Hyman with Matthews, Bozak vs. Kadri, Gardiner/Andersen cost us debates. These are in the moment things. Sometimes putting player A with B works and sometimes it doesn't. Those are more face of scrutiny things to me.

Exactly. It's not really the same kind of argument. Putting so and so with someone or not can come down to bad luck or any number of variables. Asset management is relatively simple and you can reduce it down to statistical probability. IE. If 20% of 2nd rounders become impactful players and you have 4x 2nd rounders, clearly you will have much better chance of getting a player you need compared to if you have 1x.

I guess you could put it... If you have limited funds only take the sure bets in life. If you have money you don't need want or care about, gamble it, if you want.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Here is what Babcock said:
I don’t think we are at the point where we want to be where when the puck drops in September you know you are in the playoffs. We are not at that point. We don’t have enough depth yet. In saying that, we’re going in the right direction. We’re just going to stay the course with our plan and keep adding pieces as best as we possibly can so we have the depth to do it year after year.

They should have had an idea about the test outcome.
Many of us have been saying this for a while. Letting a 30 goal scorer walk and (let's see what happens with Gardiner) is not the way to improve this.

Babcock wants Centers and Dmen depth and Mark Hunter keeps drafting wingers and its creating a problem where it forces management into shopping for help and not drafting and developing their own internally.

Leafs already need a 3rd and 4th line C and top 4 Dman for next year minimum as well as figuring out how to replace JVR offense and goal production and if you look at the prospect pool there is little to no help arriving there any time soon.

Strong drafting and developing is designed to fill holes and replenish talent to create that depth Babcock speaks of here.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
Why is JVR always traded for draft picks that won't help the team for years?
And if that did happen, those draft picks can then be used for immediate help.
JVR scored goals but cost the team a lot too. Having moved on from him would have given others a shot. Maybe they don't score as many goals, but they probably don't allow as many and have to be as heavily sheltered as JVR.

If they let Gardiner walk after this year, that's 30 goal scorer and a top 4 d-man in 2 years. There's no way to sugar coat that.
And they are not currently a top defender away from being elite. Who plays #3 and #4 C this year? Hainsey looks like at 37, he's tired. Zaitsev has been sub-par for a while.

The argument always gets put in that way because it's a cheap trick to confuse our point. Saying the picks could be used in trade doesn't fit their narratives and so they deploy these wishy washy tactics.
 

LeafGrief

Shambles in my brain
Apr 10, 2015
7,616
9,532
Ottawa
Why is JVR always traded for draft picks that won't help the team for years?
And if that did happen, those draft picks can then be used for immediate help.
JVR scored goals but cost the team a lot too. Having moved on from him would have given others a shot. Maybe they don't score as many goals, but they probably don't allow as many and have to be as heavily sheltered as JVR.

If they let Gardiner walk after this year, that's 30 goal scorer and a top 4 d-man in 2 years. There's no way to sugar coat that.
And they are not currently a top defender away from being elite. Who plays #3 and #4 C this year? Hainsey looks like at 37, he's tired. Zaitsev has been sub-par for a while.


If the point is to use the picks in another trade, then phrase it that way. Literally nobody is opposed to good hockey trades that see JVR and Gardiner going out with good players coming back in. But when I'm replying to posts about moving JVR to give Kapanen, Leivo, and Johnsson a chance on the big club, that doesn't sound like "make a hockey trade" to me. Somebody comes up with a three way deal where JVR goes out and Tanev comes back? Yeah cool stuff, I do that all day, but that's not the post I replied to. If you're trading away your 30g forward or your 50 point PMD for depth, that's making the Leafs worse. If you're trading them for other impact players, that's a completely different story and utterly besides my point. My point is that you have to be getting impact players back otherwise you are sacrificing your team's development and opportunities to compete. My point is that competing as hard as you can and keeping your rentals is worthwhile because you team gains in experience, development, and even has a chance to go all the way. The Leafs had the third most points in the East this year and our weakness is defense. Moving Gardiner this summer for anything other than a slam-dunk futures deal is making a competitive team worse, which sounds like insanity to me.


Babcock wants Centers and Dmen depth and Mark Hunter keeps drafting wingers and its creating a problem where it forces management into shopping for help and not drafting and developing their own internally.

Leafs already need a 3rd and 4th line C and top 4 Dman for next year minimum as well as figuring out how to replace JVR offense and goal production and if you look at the prospect pool there is little to no help arriving there any time soon.

Strong drafting and developing is designed to fill holes and replenish talent to create that depth Babcock speaks of here.

They drafted one winger in 2017. One. They drafted four defensemen, including both of their top60 picks. Furthermore, it's been three years since Hunter's first draft.

Toronto Maple Leafs Draft History at hockeydb.com


The Lightning have had exactly one player make the NHL since 2015 when Hunter was finally in charge. Tampa Bay Lightning Draft History at hockeydb.com


The Ducks have exactly 6 NHL games since Hunter has been in charge. Anaheim Ducks Draft History at hockeydb.com


The Jets are doing better with three players making the NHL, but they were all first round picks. They have one player drafted outside of the first round who has a single NHL game. Winnipeg Jets Draft History at hockeydb.com


Blaming the Leafs shortcomings on Hunter is about as useful as blaming the equipment managers.
 

Orfieus

Registered User
Nov 2, 2012
3,500
2,017
Atlantic Canada
The way Gardiner played near the end I wouldn't have minded giving Dermott the top4 spot and see how he plays. He probably would have been lit up against Boston but at least Dermott will grow as a player. Gardiner is who he is and I really don't think Dermott would have been worse then Gardiner in the top4 against Boston.
 

Leafsman

I guess $11M doesn't buy you what it use to
May 22, 2008
3,412
588
Was a premature test. Jvr bozak komarov should have been moved over the past 2 years. That would have us with some picks ready to potentially enter the league next season already.

They got anxious, they gambled, they lost.

Take it from a guy that knows "premature" - no matter how they played it they were in a tough spot.

True, they're short a few picks they could have scooped up. However, they now have several solid core pieces with some great experience - Marner, Nylander, Matthews, Dermott, Brown, Kapanen, Hyman are all much further along than they would have been had they made the trade. Not to mention Reilly, Zaitsev, Kadri getting some much-needed experience also.

Just curious as to how many of the draftees from two years ago are playing right now? If at this point this team is banking on players from the 2016 draft then they really haven't made as much improvement as I thought. I'd like to be in a position where we're not hanging hopes on 2-year old draftees. Spent the good part of a decade in that mindset.

I also still think you may be able to grab a pick or two by trading JVR/Bozak's rights
 

ITM

As Long As It Takes
Jan 26, 2012
4,536
2,509
Babcock wants Centers and Dmen depth and Mark Hunter keeps drafting wingers and its creating a problem where it forces management into shopping for help and not drafting and developing their own internally.

Leafs already need a 3rd and 4th line C and top 4 Dman for next year minimum as well as figuring out how to replace JVR offense and goal production and if you look at the prospect pool there is little to no help arriving there any time soon.

Strong drafting and developing is designed to fill holes and replenish talent to create that depth Babcock speaks of here.

Hunter's first draft - 2015:
Marner is a C.
Dermott is a D.
Bracco is a W.
Nielsen is a D.
Lindgren is a D.
Timashov is a W.
Desrocher is a D.
Korostolev is a W.
2015 = 5C/D + 3W

Hunter's second draft - 2016 :
Matthews is a C.
Korshkov is a W.
Grudstrom is a W.
Woll is a G.
Greenway is a D.
Brooks is a C.
Middleton is a D.
Boblylev is a W.
Walker is a W.
Mattinen is a D.
Chebykin is a W.
2016 = 4C/D + 5W + 1G

Hunter's third draft - 2017:
Liljegren is a D.
Rasanen is a D.
Scott is a G.
Kara is a W.
Gordeev is a D.
McGregor is a C.
O'Connell is a D.
2017 = 5C/D + 1W+1G

Total: 11D, 9W, 4C, 2G.

From my perspective given who we have at C...It looks like Hunter has the priorities of the club in line with the coach's stated aims. Our bottom six W depth looks like a potential strength heading forward and if both Liljegren and Rasanen pan out to add to Reilly and Dermott...I'm not sure where there's room for criticism apart from not taking my advice to draft one of Hart or Clague instead of Korshkov (I'm kidding, kinda.).
 

LeafFever

Registered User
Feb 12, 2016
18,890
6,178
The way Gardiner played near the end I wouldn't have minded giving Dermott the top4 spot and see how he plays. He probably would have been lit up against Boston but at least Dermott will grow as a player. Gardiner is who he is and I really don't think Dermott would have been worse then Gardiner in the top4 against Boston.
Given the way he played this year most organizations would have had him in a top 4 role already. Giving him less than 8 minutes in game 7 was a joke.
 

Faltorvo

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
21,067
1,941
Take it from a guy that knows "premature" - no matter how they played it they were in a tough spot.

True, they're short a few picks they could have scooped up. However, they now have several solid core pieces with some great experience - Marner, Nylander, Matthews, Dermott, Brown, Kapanen, Hyman are all much further along than they would have been had they made the trade. Not to mention Reilly, Zaitsev, Kadri getting some much-needed experience also.

Just curious as to how many of the draftees from two years ago are playing right now? If at this point this team is banking on players from the 2016 draft then they really haven't made as much improvement as I thought. I'd like to be in a position where we're not hanging hopes on 2-year old draftees. Spent the good part of a decade in that mindset.

I also still think you may be able to grab a pick or two by trading JVR/Bozak's rights


So your saying the difference between JVR/Bozak/Koma and Kappy/Aalt/Johnsson was the difference between a 105p team and missing the POs?

well i guess we fooked next season then.
 

LeafFever

Registered User
Feb 12, 2016
18,890
6,178
Babcock wants Centers and Dmen depth and Mark Hunter keeps drafting wingers and its creating a problem where it forces management into shopping for help and not drafting and developing their own internally.

Leafs already need a 3rd and 4th line C and top 4 Dman for next year minimum as well as figuring out how to replace JVR offense and goal production and if you look at the prospect pool there is little to no help arriving there any time soon.

Strong drafting and developing is designed to fill holes and replenish talent to create that depth Babcock speaks of here.
How about just give Kapanen and Johnsson more ice-time?
 

Gary Nylund

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
29,786
21,962
I don't understand this fear so many people seem to have of "making the team worse" or "sending the kids the wrong message". Progress isn't always linear and if we stubbornly resist trading vets for futures and let them walk instead, I really don't see us winning a cup in the Matthews era no matter how many good messages we send, we just don't have the depth and that depth is highly unlikely to magically appear out of nowhere. Sometimes you need to take a step back to take a step forward later, refusing to ever do that is nothing but impatience and I've seen enough of that in Leafland to last me a lifetime. JMHO.
 

Leafsman

I guess $11M doesn't buy you what it use to
May 22, 2008
3,412
588
So your saying the difference between JVR/Bozak/Koma and Kappy/Aalt/Johnsson was the difference between a 105p team and missing the POs?

well I guess we fooked next season then.

Actually my point is that we're not fooked next season because players like Kappy/Dermott/Johnson are further in their development because we held onto JVR/Bozak/Koma.

Would we have made the playoffs without them?? Can't say. A large part of why we made the playoffs this year was also due to Matthews/Marner/Nylander who were likely advanced in their development the previous year having had JVR/Bozak/Koma on the team and them making it into the playoffs by a point in the 2nd last game.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->