Salary Cap: Leafs' 2014-2015 Cap Situation and Strategy

[Delicious Dangles*]

3 years runs into next summer, and I have illustrated the cap crunch already next summer, and it runs into a summer where we may be bidding for Stamkos and beyond. 3 years is significant for a team taking on salary and with no more buyouts.

There is no cap crunch next summer, as I showed earlier in this thread and you ignored.

We will not be bidding for Stamkos. Performing GM duties around relying on that happening would be grounds for immediate termination. If by some magical chance it was possible, none of these contracts would be a barrier to that happening.

Guess what. Nobody has anymore buyouts. Not sure why you keep bringing that up.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

Next year Leafs will be in the same position again needing to find half a dozen cheap players so no matter if the team moves forward in the standings with this bottom 6 most will need to be replaced next year as 1 year contracts expire.

Including Bernier and Kadri which you have already factored into this hypothetical cost structure, Toronto has 9 forwards, 5 defensemen and 2 goalies signed through next year. That is 4 potential spots, for the 4th line and #6 defenseman, a fact which you conveniently keep forgetting to mention.

HOWEVER, this is with the assumption that ZERO prospects advance to the big club this year OR next year. With many prospects on the cusp or needing 1 more year, and with a consistent past of prospects making the team, I would say that is HIGHLY unlikely.

This is not an unusual position to be in in the NHL. In fact, it is common.

There is no problem. Stop with the sensationalism.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

The question therein is why can't Leafs management outperform NY's with much more resources available to them?

Because Toronto has the money to spend and fans get upset if they don't spend, and much more importantly, because this year we happened to have many of our best players come due for contracts (2 of them their first UFA contracts). Kessel, Phaneuf, Gardiner. As somebody mentioned earlier in the thread, that means our players are getting raises not only due to development but because of increases in cap. Year 1 of contracts tend to be less bang for your buck then a couple years in for this reason.

This is a normal cycle for NHL teams, and it just happens to be where you are in your contract cycles. This is why, despite what people in this forum like to try and hide, there is little correlation between cap and success. The only place you see any correlation at all is at the very top and the very bottom, and that is usually due to the top teams often having multiple elite players and the very bottom teams often rebuilding and having none. And the top players are where a larger proportion of the static money goes. Then at the top you also often find rich teams, regardless of quality of team. And at the bottom you also often find poor teams, regardless of quality of teams.

This is no secret, but people around here only seem to bring up the whole cap vs. success agenda when it works with bashing the Leafs.

It is not a problem unless it is preventing moves, and there is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

We also have to remember that the people using the current edition of capgeek and complaining that the cap vs. success doesn't match up, are evaluating future contracts against past results. Seems rather silly for a growing team.

 

[Pholus]

We also have to remember that the people using the current edition of capgeek and complaining that the cap vs. success doesn't match up, are evaluating future contracts against past results. Seems rather silly for a growing team.

Why must you bring logical arguments to this thread?

 

[Gary Nylund]

We also have to remember that the people using the current edition of capgeek and complaining that the cap vs. success doesn't match up, are evaluating future contracts against past results. Seems rather silly for a growing team.

Except that every single contract negotiation involves measuring past performance to determine future pay. It's not hard to understand someone questioning what have these guys done to earn these huge paydays.

Some contracts end up being very good value, others turn out to be horrible. It's natural for fans to anticipate how some will turn out.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Except that every single contract negotiation involves measuring past performance to determine future pay. It's not hard to understand someone questioning what have these guys done to earn these huge paydays.

Some contracts end up being very good value, others turn out to be horrible. It's natural for fans to anticipate how some will turn out.

Except through a lot of this thread people are trying to use the success that teams LA + Chicago HAVE HAD as the models of success 2, 3 or even 4+ year from now.

However, their is absolutely no proof that you can win with:

Chicago: Toews + Kane making 10.5 million each instead of 6.3 million. These guys making that much will mean less star power moving forward whether it be a Sharp or Hossa or Seabrook which will hurt them.

LA: Mike Richards who was a great deal but is now looking like the next player who falls off in his early 30s like Horcoff or Darcy Tucker did. Brown was making 3.175 per year but turning 30 this fall will be starting year 1 of an 8 year deal that pays him 5.875 per year. No Leaf would be happy paying him that.

The Leafs aren't in nearly as bad a shape as some fans want to make us out to be. We've got some very good young talent that can be front line players that has yet to fully put it together in Gardiner, Rielly, Nylander and even Kadri depending on how you want to view him.

The biggest issue I see with the Leafs compared to other teams that turned it around is that we haven't added a few top end talents (assets) at the draft in a cluster of only a few years. Adding Rielly was great by then following it with Gauthier the next draft was weak. When LA or Chicago were rebuilding they were fortunate (in the long term) to suck just that little bit extra to load up on more premium assets after they already had some other strong foundation pieces in place:

LA added Doughty, Voynov, Schenn (later was the main piece for Richards) in back to back drafts after already have guys like Kopitar, Brown in their system.

Chicago added Toews + Kane in back to back drafts after already having guys like Keith, Seabrook, etc. in their system.

Boston got Kessel at 5th overall then got very fortunate with getting Lucic + Marchand in the same draft after already drafting Bergeron + Krejci a few years prior.

Tanking so we can follow up the nice Nylander pick with another top pick or just getting really lucky at the draft is what this team needs if it ever hopes to be more then an average team. Even if we use the pick as a trade chip. Tanking would also mean we trade out some rentals for other extra picks. Toronto as much as anything right now just needs to be loading up on assets which is what they should have been doing in recent seasons instead of dealing for a guy like Bolland and eventually letting guys like Grabo, Kulemin, CMac walk for nothing. It was absolutely terrible asset management losing (or not gaining) longer term assets for these players in non-contending years.

Moving forward though with the exception of Clarkson our contract situation isn't bad at all. When teams like LA or Chicago were growing into elite team lets not forget that guy like Handzus, Smyth, Samsanov, Gagne were among their highest paid players.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Except through a lot of this thread people are trying to use the success that teams LA + Chicago HAVE HAD as the models of success 2, 3 or even 4+ year from now.

However, their is absolutely no proof that you can win with:

Chicago: Toews + Kane making 10.5 million each instead of 6.3 million. These guys making that much will mean less star power moving forward whether it be a Sharp or Hossa or Seabrook which will hurt them.

LA: Mike Richards who was a great deal but is now looking like the next player who falls off in his early 30s like Horcoff or Darcy Tucker did. Brown was making 3.175 per year but turning 30 this fall will be starting year 1 of an 8 year deal that pays him 5.875 per year. No Leaf would be happy paying him that.

The Leafs aren't in nearly as bad a shape as some fans want to make us out to be. We've got some very good young talent that can be front line players that has yet to fully put it together in Gardiner, Rielly, Nylander and even Kadri depending on how you want to view him.

The biggest issue I see with the Leafs compared to other teams that turned it around is that we have added a few top end talents (assets) at the draft in a cluster of only a few years. Adding Rielly was great by then following it with Gauthier the next draft was weak. When LA or Chicago were rebuilding they were fortunate (in the long term) to suck just that little bit extra to load up on more premium assets after they already had some other strong foundation pieces in place:

LA added Doughty, Voynov, Schenn (later was the main piece for Richards) in back to back drafts after already have guys like Kopitar, Brown in their system.

Chicago added Toews + Kane in back to back drafts after already having guys like Keith, Seabrook, etc. in their system.

Boston got Kessel at 5th overall then got some very fortunate with getting Lucic + Marchand in the same draft after already drafting Bergeron + Krejci a few years prior.

Tanking so we can follow up the nice Nylander pick with another top pick or just getting really lucky at the draft is what this team needs if it ever hopes to be more then an average team. Even if we use the pick as a trade chip. Tanking would also mean we trade out some rentals for other extra picks. Toronto as much anything Toronto right now just needs to be loading up on assets which is what they should have been doing in recent seasons instead of dealing for a guy like Bolland and eventually letting guys like Grabo, Kulemin, CMac walk for nothing. It was absolutely terrible asset management losing (or not gaining) longer term assets for these players in non-contending years.

Moving forward though with the exception of Clarkson our contract situation isn't bad at all. When teams like LA or Chicago were growing into elite team lets not forget that guy like Handzus, Smyth, Samsanov, Gagne were among their highest paid players.

I agree, that's it in a nushell. We have talent, contract are overall decent value except for Clarkson (who hopefully will improve) but overall it's hard to see this team being quite good enough to contend down the line unless we tank, deal off assets for futures or just get lucky somehow and ideally a combination of all three. Like you've been saying for some time now - we need to be willing to take a step or two back in order to step forward later.

I would only add that there is something else wrong with this team, likely the coaching. Last year we were much less than the sum of the parts. We were a good example of the fact that talent doesn't equal performance. I hope that changes for us.

 

[Mess]

Except that every single contract negotiation involves measuring past performance to determine future pay. It's not hard to understand someone questioning what have these guys done to earn these huge paydays.

Some contracts end up being very good value, others turn out to be horrible. It's natural for fans to anticipate how some will turn out.

Seems like the cart before the horse in Toronto.

Toews and Kane win Chicago 2 X Stanley Cups and then get paid for past success, but they made the Hawks a lot of money and they are proven winners. The Hawks will have a much tougher time winning another Cup with the contracts of these star players now due to the talent level of the rest of the team surrounding them now being less with less cap room for the support players.

In Toronto its reversed as Kessel and Phaneuf are getting paid among the elite by position but the team hasn't gone anywhere. (6 bottom 10 finishes in the last 7 years).. Similarly to the Hawks the more they make the less there is for everyone else in order to attempt to ice a competitive team. Toronto had to let players walk and bottom fill with cheaper reclamation projects based strictly on cap space. Replacing a player like Bolland that has 2 Stanley Cups of experience & 67 games 17 goals 26 points 43 NHL playoff points for Mike Santorelli who at 28 has never played an NHL playoff game is not moving the Leafs closer to Cup but further away.

The biggest difference when comparing Chicago and Toronto now and new contracts is that if Hawks didn't win another Cup in a while it would be much easier to swallow for fans because they just got to rejoice in 2 Cups in the past 5 years.. What about Leaf fans however who now have been waiting since 1967 and with new contracts and less cap are now weakening their depth and making it even harder to win..

 

[seanlinden]

I agree, that's it in a nushell. We have talent, contract are overall decent value except for Clarkson (who hopefully will improve) but overall it's hard to see this team being quite good enough to contend down the line unless we tank, deal off assets for futures or just get lucky somehow and ideally a combination of all three. Like you've been saying for some time now - we need to be willing to take a step or two back in order to step forward later.

I would only add that there is something else wrong with this team, likely the coaching. Last year we were much less than the sum of the parts. We were a good example of the fact that talent doesn't equal performance. I hope that changes for us.

I agree that comparing this year's cap hits of a team like LA, when they won last year, isn't totally appropriate, what we need to do is compare this year's cap hit, against a team like Los Angeles last year.

They had Justin Williams, making $3.6m. Where's ours? Joffrey Lupul making $5.25m?

They had Anze Kopitar, making $6.8m. Where's ours? Phil Kessel making $8m?

They had Jeff Carter making $5.2m. Where's ours? a substantially inferior Nazem Kadri making $3m for 1 more year?

Dustin Brown making $3.1m. We've got David Clarkson making $5.2m.

The cap went up 7%, which means on average, this year's salaries should be 7% higher, but that comes nowhere near closing the gap.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Seems like the cart before the horse in Toronto.

Toews and Kane win Chicago 2 X Stanley Cups and then get paid for past success, but they made the Hawks a lot of money and they are proven winners. The Hawks will have a much tougher time winning another Cup with the contracts of these star players now due to the talent level of the rest of the team surrounding them now being less with less cap room for the support players.

In Toronto its reversed as Kessel and Phaneuf are getting paid among the elite by position but the team hasn't gone anywhere. (6 bottom 10 finishes in the last 7 years).. Similarly to the Hawks the more they make the less there is for everyone else in order to attempt to ice a competitive team. Toronto had to let players walk and bottom fill with cheaper reclamation projects based strictly on cap space. Replacing a player like Bolland that has 2 Stanley Cups of experience & 67 games 17 goals 26 points 43 NHL playoff points for Mike Santorelli who at 28 has never played an NHL playoff game is not moving the Leafs closer to Cup but further away.

The biggest difference when comparing Chicago and Toronto now and new contracts is that if Hawks didn't win another Cup in a while it would be much easier to swallow for fans because they just got to rejoice in 2 Cups in the past 5 years.. What about Leaf fans however who now have been waiting since 1967 and with new contracts and less cap are now weakening their depth and making it even harder to win..

If we tried to pay our best players based on team success, we'd lose said best players.

And at this point in time I'm not sure Bolland is that much more valuable compared to Santorelli, that the latter hasn't been part of a team that gets success is not a major factor in how valuable he can become for us.

You are basically arguing here that we shouldn't give out contracts to our top players unless they are young, have had team success and will be getting their second contract. Or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Seems like the cart before the horse in Toronto.

Toews and Kane win Chicago 2 X Stanley Cups and then get paid for past success, but they made the Hawks a lot of money and they are proven winners. The Hawks will have a much tougher time winning another Cup with the contracts of these star players now due to the talent level of the rest of the team surrounding them now being less with less cap room for the support players.

In Toronto its reversed as Kessel and Phaneuf are getting paid among the elite by position but the team hasn't gone anywhere. (6 bottom 10 finishes in the last 7 years).. Similarly to the Hawks the more they make the less there is for everyone else in order to attempt to ice a competitive team. Toronto had to let players walk and bottom fill with cheaper reclamation projects based strictly on cap space. Replacing a player like Bolland that has 2 Stanley Cups of experience & 67 games 17 goals 26 points 43 NHL playoff points for Mike Santorelli who at 28 has never played an NHL playoff game is not moving the Leafs closer to Cup but further away.

The biggest difference when comparing Chicago and Toronto now and new contracts is that if Hawks didn't win another Cup in a while it would be much easier to swallow for fans because they just got to rejoice in 2 Cups in the past 5 years.. What about Leaf fans however who now have been waiting since 1967 and with new contracts and less cap are now weakening their depth and making it even harder to win..

Wrong. Toews and Kane got paid market value. If Chicago didn't pay them other teams would be happy to. Pay attention when Stamkos signs his next deal - guarantee he breaks the bank if he continues his stellar play even if the team doesn't even make the playoffs between now and then.

Players get paid based on their performance, not the teams.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I agree that comparing this year's cap hits of a team like LA, when they won last year, isn't totally appropriate, what we need to do is compare this year's cap hit, against a team like Los Angeles last year.

They had Justin Williams, making $3.6m. Where's ours? Joffrey Lupul making $5.25m?

They had Anze Kopitar, making $6.8m. Where's ours? Phil Kessel making $8m?

They had Jeff Carter making $5.2m. Where's ours? a substantially inferior Nazem Kadri making $3m for 1 more year?

Dustin Brown making $3.1m. We've got David Clarkson making $5.2m.

The cap went up 7%, which means on average, this year's salaries should be 7% higher, but that comes nowhere near closing the gap.

I'm not sure I understand. Are these rhetorical questions or are they directed at me?

LA is awesome. I don't see us being an elite team in the foreseeable future unless something drastically changes.

 

[seanlinden]

I'm not sure I understand. Are these rhetorical questions or are they directed at me?

LA is awesome. I don't see us being an elite team in the foreseeable future unless something drastically changes.

More rhetorical.

LA is awesome, we need to stop thinking like losers and be better.

 

[Mess]

Wrong. Toews and Kane got paid market value. If Chicago didn't pay them other teams would be happy to. Pay attention when Stamkos signs his next deal - guarantee he breaks the bank if he continues his stellar play even if the team doesn't even make the playoffs between now and then.

Players get paid based on their performance, not the teams.

I am not arguing Kane and Toews are not being paid market. They each won a Conn Smythe as playoff MVPs after leading the Hawks to the Cup. Now based on their past production and contributions earned their new contracts.

However it was easier for the Hawks to win their Cups when they were on better cheaper contracts $6.3 mil in a Cap World because there was more cap space for their teammates. Now making $10.5 mil each when their new contracts kicks in, in 2015-16 season they will have to make cuts to the roster ie Sharp might have to be sacrificed to accommodate new salaries. That makes the Hawks team weaker and less cup competitive due to to increased salaries.

TB is in the best position to try and win a Cup in the next couple of years for the same reason as above. Stamkos making $7.5 mil as opposed to when he will be making market and +$12 mil per.

Its all about window of opportunity.

Leafs now by paying Kessel and Phaneuf market value and among the highest by position missed their window when they were making less. Now they use more Cap and less room for the rest of the team which makes Leafs odds and chances less for success based on weakening their depth/support players surrounding them.

 

[Gallagbi]

How long before Kessel is "below market value"?

Cap is supposed to rise next year, Kane and Toews just signed for 2+ mill more than Kessel. Spezza, MacKinnon, Bobrovski, St. Louis, Krejci, E. Staal, Stamkos, Kopitar, Lucic, and a number of others will all be signing in the next 2 years. Kessel could be outside the top 20 paid players while being a top 5 scorer by 2016.

 

[Morbo]

Leafs now by paying Kessel and Phaneuf market value and among the highest by position missed their window when they were making less. Now they use more Cap and less room for the rest of the team which makes Leafs odds and chances less for success based on weakening their depth/support players surrounding them.

This would only make sense with a static or declining cap.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

I am not arguing Kane and Toews are not being paid market. They each won a Conn Smythe as playoff MVPs after leading the Hawks to the Cup. Now based on their past production and contributions earned their new contracts.

However it was easier for the Hawks to win their Cups when they were on better cheaper contracts $6.3 mil in a Cap World because there was more cap space for their teammates. Now making $10.5 mil each when their new contracts kicks in, in 2015-16 season they will have to make cuts to the roster ie Sharp might have to be sacrificed to accommodate new salaries. That makes the Hawks team weaker and less cup competitive due to to increased salaries.

TB is in the best position to try and win a Cup in the next couple of years for the same reason as above. Stamkos making $7.5 mil as opposed to when he will be making market and +$12 mil per.

Its all about window of opportunity.

Leafs now by paying Kessel and Phaneuf market value and among the highest by position missed their window when they were making less. Now they use more Cap and less room for the rest of the team which makes Leafs odds and chances less for success based on weakening their depth/support players surrounding them.

On the flip side of that though is that by extending Kessel + Phaneuf vs. trading them at the deadline or even the previous summer we ended up with two players who have greater trade value.

Fact is the Leafs had/have far to many organizational holes to fill in just one season + off-season but extending all of Phaneuf, Kessel, Gardiner to their new deals is a positive. Everyone of those deals has upside. Everyone of those players has better trade value under their new deal.

Even the Phaneuf deal has upside in another few years when people see that guys like Green, Martin, Staal, Seabrook, Yandle, Goligoski, Giordano, Goligoski (all UFAs in the next two years) start getting their new deals. #3/4 Dmen like Orpik, Niskanen, Gonchar, Streit, Wideman have all got north of 5 million on multi year deals in recent seasons. If teams are paying those players that kind of coin a top pairing Dman like Phaneuf would definitely be tradeable today.

I'm not overly concerned about cap space next season because already not much is available worth spending big bucks in free agency.

After that we aren't that well positioned in terms of being able to give up premium assets (like a Gardiner, Rielly, 1st rounder, Nylander, etc.) to make a trade for a star talent on a good contract.

The best thing that could happen to this team this year is to stink like LA (Doughty + Schenn) or Chicago (Toews + Kane) or Tampa (Stamkos + Hedman) or St. Louis (Pietrangelo + overloading on a lot other picks) or Pittsburgh (so many) did in loading up on top end talent in a few short years. The Nylander pick was nice now we need to follow it up with adding more young talent (assets).

Tanking + getting a high 1st rounder + selling off pending UFAs for some extra mid round picks + probably also a valued vet or two like Polak, Robidas, Lupul or even Phaneuf could change this organization very quickly.

Although it hurts to cheer for a team to lose it would be far better for us to be really bad then to be fighting for a playoff spot this year and hoping we get lucky with a middle of the 1st round draft slot.

 

[Mess]

This would only make sense with a static or declining cap.

This is allowing for cap increases and factoring in annual increases.. Next year the cap goes up ~$5 mil and Leafs use that increase to re-sign Bernier and Kadri to their new contracts. Same team only more expensive using the new cap increase.

Once again a team doesn't become better by simply paying their own players more money.

The following year the Cap goes up again and now Rielly etc is coming of his ELC and needs a new deal once again using the new increasing cap to accommodate his new contract. Rinse and repeat as the annual cycle continues.

The problem is Leafs continue to spend to the cap ceiling by re-signing their own players to new raises, but the team hasn't proven to be cup competitive. So keeping the same team together doesn't change that. This year they were already forced to walk away from their own players to force change but had to find cheaper talent and didn't add any top 6 forwards or really top 4 Dmen to make a significant difference.

When Kessel was making $5.6 mil and scoring PPG the team wasn't competitive and now they are paying him +$2.4 mil more and likely going to get similar production. That doesn't make the team better however and in fact its now $2.4 mil less to spend on the supporting players. So 1/2 of this year Cap increase used towards player raises. Dion's contract etc has a similar impact on remaining cap space.

This strategy is okay for LA or Chicago since they are keeping Cup winning teams together by cap maxing out annually, but it doesn't allow for improvements to non playoff teams if they don't have the cap space to add new talent to close the competitiveness gap that currently exists.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This is allowing for cap increases and factoring in annual increases.. Next year the cap goes up ~$5 mil and Leafs use that increase to re-sign Bernier and Kadri to their new contracts. Same team only more expensive using the new cap increase.

Once again a team doesn't become better by simply paying their own players more money.

The following year the Cap goes up again and now Rielly etc is coming of his ELC and needs a new deal once again using the new increasing cap to accommodate his new contract. Rinse and repeat as the annual cycle continues.

The problem is Leafs continue to spend to the cap ceiling by re-signing their own players to new raises, but the team hasn't proven to be cup competitive. So keeping the same team together doesn't change that. This year they were already forced to walk away from their own players to force change but had to find cheaper talent and didn't add any top 6 forwards or really top 4 Dmen to make a significant difference.

When Kessel was making $5.6 mil and scoring PPG the team wasn't competitive and now they are paying him +$2.4 mil more and likely going to get similar production. That doesn't make the team better however and in fact its now $2.4 mil less to spend on the supporting players. So 1/2 of this year Cap increase used towards player raises. Dion's contract etc has a similar impact on remaining cap space.

This strategy is okay for LA or Chicago since they are keeping Cup winning teams together by cap maxing out annually, but it doesn't allow for improvements to non playoff teams if they don't have the cap space to add new talent to close the competitiveness gap that currently exists.

Leafs are paying Kessel 2.4 million more, Chicago is paying Kane and Toews what, 8 million more?

Doesn't really matter anyway, we're not going to close the gap between us and them in one season anyway and even if we did have extra money to spend, there's nothing to spend it on.

I don't disagree that spending more money on the same players doesn't make a team better. But that's stating the obvious anyway isn't it?

 

[seanlinden]

This would only make sense with a static or declining cap.

This year, he's absolutely correct. The cap went up by 7%. Kessel's cap hit went up by 48%. Phaneuf's cap hit went up by the same 7%, so less of a concern. Gardiner's went up by 264%. Proportionately, the rest of the team has less to spend as a result; so you have to ask yourself, who's going to deliver substantially greater impact then they did last year?

 

[4evaBlue]

TB is in the best position to try and win a Cup in the next couple of years for the same reason as above. Stamkos making $7.5 mil as opposed to when he will be making market and +$12 mil per.

LOL, I'm sorry, but this is a joke. TB needs to get thier D in order and get some depth in pretty much every position before we can talk about their position to win a cup. When Stamkos' contract expires has little to do with this.

 

[Faltorvo]

LOL, I'm sorry, but this is a joke. TB needs to get thier D in order and get some depth in pretty much every position before we can talk about their position to win a cup. When Stamkos' contract expires has little to do with this.

They finished 3rd in the east and they had this kid named Stamkos only play 37 games.

They have this kid on defence named Hedman who is gaining Norris recognition and some rook coming up named Druin and another named Palat.

Hrmm I wonder folks, what would the talk be around here if we had finished 3rd in the east with only 37 games of Kessel, a rook season like Palat just had, 23 year old hedman coming off a break out season and Druin still due to hit this roster.

Me thinks we would calling ourselves cup contenders.

 

[4evaBlue]

They finished 3rd in the east and they had this kid named Stamkos only play 37 games.

They have this kid on defence named Hedman who is gaining Norris recognition and some rook coming up named Druin and another named Palat.

Hrmm I wonder folks, what would the talk be around here if we had finished 3rd in the east with only 37 games of Kessel, a rook season like Palat just had, 23 year old hedman coming off a break out season and Druin still due to hit this roster.

Me thinks we would calling ourselves cup contenders.

Let's not pretend that they didn't lose a significant cog from their offense last season. TB will go as far as Bishop will take em. They're actually in a similar situation as the Leafs are, with less depth, but a better superstar.

 

[Gary Nylund]

They finished 3rd in the east and they had this kid named Stamkos only play 37 games.

They have this kid on defence named Hedman who is gaining Norris recognition and some rook coming up named Druin and another named Palat.

Hrmm I wonder folks, what would the talk be around here if we had finished 3rd in the east with only 37 games of Kessel, a rook season like Palat just had, 23 year old hedman coming off a break out season and Druin still due to hit this roster.

Me thinks we would calling ourselves cup contenders.

No doubt. The parade planning would be in full swing!