I'm not sure what year you're asking about. We didn't go "all forward no D". Even aside from the previously mentioned shift in draft focus, we've added a number of top-4 defensemen since Tavares, and we went from one of the worst defensive teams in the league to a very good defensive team for a number of years until this year.
Player Development
- Thread starter Fogelhund
- Start date
The Shrike
Registered User
Without the pandemic that $11 million wouldn't have been an issue.
It was always high and likely to hurt on the backend, but the pandemic made it worse because it cost us some depth to offset
acrobaticgoalie
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2014
- 3,357
- 3,391
You don't think it had to do with him constantly being suspended and costing us playoff runs? It took him 2 years after we traded him for him to smarten up.
You can stick up for team mates without being an idiot and committing dirty acts that puts your team at a disadvantage. We just saw that with Rielly.
The Shrike
Registered User
Is this the ‘development thread’? I think so.
If you look at the drafts from 2010-2019, using playing 200 nhl games as a baseline being a good draft outcome, as I do, the leafs have drafted pretty well really. I feel like drafting two guys a year who hit that benchmark is good drafting and gives you a good pipeline of youth. More is gravy.
Two in ‘10, 1 in ‘11, 2 in ‘12 with a third likely to reach the benchmark this year, 2 in ‘13 (GOAT was a lil shy of being the third), 2 in ‘14 with Joshua well on his way), 2 in ‘15, 2 in ‘16 with Woll a third NHL player, none from ‘17 but Lili will likely hit the mark this year, 2 in ‘18 with Pontus looking a likely third, and ‘19 - while still early, looking like 1 in NickRob (with maybe Abruzzese and Kokkonen having outside chances, maybe not so much with the leafs). In an average draft, that’s a 2/7 or 28% hit rate. Over 10 years, that’s 20 hits. The Leafs have hit at 16 already with 18 likely hitting the mark by the end of the year, two more establishing their place in the lineup making 20 probable. A bit early to judge 17-19, but the drafting and developing has been okay.
That’s with 5 picks over a full draft card during those 10 years. Very good success with firsts after the GOAT pick. Hits in all the rounds, various developmental curves.
FA outside of the draft has yielded many players.
The drafts from 20-23, where you might see 8 players hit the mark, have at least 7 guys tracking well enough to expect they’ll make it with two other goalies tracking well enough. And a bunch of guys who the jury is still *more* out on. That’s over 30 picks, or 5 fewer than a full draft card over that time. And includes the Rodion tragedy.
I’d say they’re doing okay. My thoughts are I don’t care how many picks you have, so long as you hit that benchmark - and that’s been looking good by my math.
If you look at the drafts from 2010-2019, using playing 200 nhl games as a baseline being a good draft outcome, as I do, the leafs have drafted pretty well really. I feel like drafting two guys a year who hit that benchmark is good drafting and gives you a good pipeline of youth. More is gravy.
Two in ‘10, 1 in ‘11, 2 in ‘12 with a third likely to reach the benchmark this year, 2 in ‘13 (GOAT was a lil shy of being the third), 2 in ‘14 with Joshua well on his way), 2 in ‘15, 2 in ‘16 with Woll a third NHL player, none from ‘17 but Lili will likely hit the mark this year, 2 in ‘18 with Pontus looking a likely third, and ‘19 - while still early, looking like 1 in NickRob (with maybe Abruzzese and Kokkonen having outside chances, maybe not so much with the leafs). In an average draft, that’s a 2/7 or 28% hit rate. Over 10 years, that’s 20 hits. The Leafs have hit at 16 already with 18 likely hitting the mark by the end of the year, two more establishing their place in the lineup making 20 probable. A bit early to judge 17-19, but the drafting and developing has been okay.
That’s with 5 picks over a full draft card during those 10 years. Very good success with firsts after the GOAT pick. Hits in all the rounds, various developmental curves.
FA outside of the draft has yielded many players.
The drafts from 20-23, where you might see 8 players hit the mark, have at least 7 guys tracking well enough to expect they’ll make it with two other goalies tracking well enough. And a bunch of guys who the jury is still *more* out on. That’s over 30 picks, or 5 fewer than a full draft card over that time. And includes the Rodion tragedy.
I’d say they’re doing okay. My thoughts are I don’t care how many picks you have, so long as you hit that benchmark - and that’s been looking good by my math.
The moment you spend 11 mill on a center when all you have is muzzin rielly and an expiring gardiner that’s essentially what your doing our area of need has always been defence our three drafted superstars in the making we’re forwards we still had rielly and kadri with the second tier forward group in the ahl our area of need has always been defence we never addressed it you can talk about the ceci trade the eventual stupid kadri trade the muzzin trade we had no d to begin with you need 6 good ones at the very least 4 really good ones we have never reached that number we had forward depth for days brown or kapanen were on your 4th line we never had enough defensemen that jt video game signing was dumb in hindsight and during the time of the deal cause we all could see the writing on the wall for the cost controlled second line center that plays with jam when we needed a third line center with jam and another dman
Pretty reasonable take, passing on Hart was a head scratcher to me at time since the goalie cupboard was bare and iirc he was the best in the draft. Joe Woll has had a steady progression, so no complaints about him in the 4th. Good draft read there.
Debrincat woulda been a fine pick too, obviously.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,877
- 7,759
In response to a post that said in the couple of seasons after getting Matthews we didn't focus on drafting defence in the first few rounds, but instead signed JT, you said we drafted 17. When asked to name those 17 defencemen drafted in the first couple of rounds in 2017 and 2018, you obviously did not (no surprise), but started trying to change the narrative.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,877
- 7,759
Muzzen seems to be the only name he's mentioned as one of the 17 defencemen he says we drafted in 2017 and 2018.
He's referenced the 11 D drafted after the Matthews draft. You can look it up on hockeydb, it'd be the 2017, 2018 and 2019 drafts if that's easier for you to lookup
Last edited:
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 21,584
- 6,166
why are you wasting your time , all he wants is a response and he'll go in circles all day to get as many as he can , that's how he earns a living
just put him on ignore like most have
I never said that we drafted 17 defensemen in the 2017 and 2018 drafts, or changed any narrative. That's you misreading again. I said, and I quote, "Center and defense were both needs, which is why we used 16-17 (depending on how one classifies Holmberg) of our next 22 picks over the next 3 years on C and D prospects" I also expanded on that and pointed out that "11 out of the 22 were defensemen, including our 1st and 2nd round picks in the next 2 years, so this idea that we just went for forwards is wrong."
I assumed that you weren't serious when you asked for names, since you butchered what I said to such a comedic extent, and it's something that is so easy for you to look up, but just for you: Our next 4 top-60 picks were used on defensemen - Liljegren, Rasanan, Sandin, and Durzi. And the other 7 over that 2017-2019 timeframe were Gordeev, O'Connell, Hollowell, Kral, Kokkonen, Koster, and Loponen.
As for the idea that we ignored defense at the NHL level to instead sign Tavares, that's also clearly false, as we added a top D in Muzzin that same year, and added multiple top-4 defensemen since; launching us from a bottom of the league defensive team to a very good one.
It's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to say here, but we had relative weaknesses at C and D. We addressed both, and built a top tier team that was good defensively.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,877
- 7,759
The topic he responded to was about defencemen drafted in the early rounds between the Matthews draft and signing Tavares. That's two drafts.
He said 17. Then when I asked him to name them, he's changed it to three seasons and added forwards. I still don't think we drafted even eleven defencemen in the top rounds in those two years.
The only names he has come up with in response to my request are Tavares and Muzzin, neither of whom we drafted.
Didn't look like he changed a thing, he said 17 C & D, and over the full drafts. He also said 11D when you asked specifically about the D over the 3 drafts following Matthews. It read very clear to me.
Hockeydb is a great draft resource when you're unsure. Do some legwork if you're curious.
Last edited:
Gilmour1996
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2022
- 884
- 1,052
The Shrike
Registered User
True, but the other teams didn't just sign an $11 million player with the reasonable expectation that the cap would go up in subsequent years. Not poor planning, just astronomically bad luck.
- Dec 12, 2017
- 22,722
- 10,044
Also, galactically bad luck that the UFAs felt they were worth the same as the 11 mm RFA.
The topic I responded to said nothing about only 2 drafts. The topic was the positions the team drafted post-Matthews, our relative weaknesses at the time, and the impact of the Tavares decision on adding defensemen. So first I pointed out that our relative weaknesses were at both D and C, and pointed out that "we used 16-17 (depending on how one classifies Holmberg) of our next 22 picks over the next 3 years on C and D prospects". Very clearly stated from the very start. 3 years. Defense and centers.
After you misrepresented that, you wanted to only talk defensemen, which I also provided for you. "11 out of the 22 were defensemen, including our 1st and 2nd round picks in the next 2 years, so this idea that we just went for forwards is wrong." Even specifically included the top rounds over the next 2 drafts that you wanted, which also completely contradicted your claim that we just went for forwards. Literally ALL of them were defense.
Contrary to your claim, I've also specifically named them for you: "Our next 4 top-60 picks were used on defensemen - Liljegren, Rasanan, Sandin, and Durzi. And the other 7 over that 2017-2019 timeframe were Gordeev, O'Connell, Hollowell, Kral, Kokkonen, Koster, and Loponen."
I then addressed the Tavares signing (which helped the relative weakness at C, among other things), and showed how it didn't prevent us from also improving the relative weakness at D. We added a top defensemen in Muzzin that same year, and have added multiple top-4 defensemen since. Defense was a heavy focus, and it turned us from a bottom of the league defensive team to a very good one.
Hellcat
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2022
- 2,160
- 2,065
Dmen drafted by Leafs since Matty - in total we drafted 17 D-men since Matty's Draft - maybe a misunderstanding?
2023
Noah Chadwick , #185
2022
None
2021
None
2020
Topi Niemela, # 64
William Villeneuve, #122
Axel Rindell, #177
John Fusco, #189
2019
Mikko Kokkonen, #84
Michael Koster, #146
Kalle Loponen, #204
2018
Rasmus Sandin, #29
Sean Durzi, #52
Mac Hollowell, #118
Filip Kral, #149
2017
Timothy Liljegren, #17
Eemeli Rasanen, #59
2016 (Matty;s Year)
J.D. Greenway, #72
Keaton Middleton, #101
Nicolas Mattinen, #179
A bird in the bush ... counting chickens before they are hatched... all those cliche sayings are appropriate for the Dubas era.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,877
- 7,759
Again - "defencemen drafted in early rounds in 2 years" was what he presumably responded to, and if he thinks "17 C and D in all rounds over several years" is a correct response, I don't know what to say.
Beyond "that's dekes".
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,877
- 7,759
Thanks for doing Dekes work for him. Since what he was responding to was my comment about top picks in the two years between Matthews draft and JT's signing, I see six, and only four that could be considered 'top'.
Honestly, he made a relevant, accurate point to the conversation with facts. You want to ignore it that's fine, but don't pretend he's lied or not on topic.
I won't change your mind, but it seems pretty obvious from the outside.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,877
- 7,759
His response was neither relevant nor accurate in context to my post that he was presumably replying to, as I have shown, with facts, several times.
Within the overall context of the conversation, yes, but not at all to my post.
