Line Combos: TOR needs to **** or get off the pot in regards to our defense

[Rob Brown]

Matthews and Tavares are a cup contending center core that create match up problems like the Pens roster creates match up problems. It's quite simple.

Yeah...there's a reason why other top teams like Tampa were gunning for him.

 

[Liminality]

Yeah...there's a reason why other top teams like Tampa were gunning for him.

You don't have to think too hard when you have the opportunity to get a top 15 center (at least) for just cap hit. Big reason why we got those cap specialists in the first place I bet.

 

[Rob Brown]

You don't have to think too hard when you have the opportunity to get a top 15 center (at least) for just cap hit. Big reason why we got those cap specialists in the first place I bet.

Agreed!

 

[Oscar Peterson]

That's my point. I would agree with that because you acquire a potentially tradeable asset at no cost, but in this case you are acquiring a great talent, but at what cost, and was he really needed? I would think that money would have been better spent balancing out the Leaf's line-up with an improved defense. The Leafs already had all the offense they needed.

If Leafs don't sign Tavares, we still have Bozak and Van Riemsdyk's contracts expiring. So would we really have all the offense that we needed? Tavares is at a lower cap hit than what Bozak and JVR's new contracts combine for, and improves us offensively and defensively while also giving Babcock way more flexibility in regards to rolling out our lines.
If we don't sign Tavares and still lose those two, then we are a weaker team offensively with a boatload of unused cap space not being used to help make us a better team now, unless we use it in a trade in which case we are still giving up more assets.
Also, I don't see why we need to be a balanced team, our identity is in our speed and offense, sure it would be nice if we could upgrade our defense but good d-men are not cheap, and there's nothing wrong with turning a strength into an even bigger strength. It will still improve the team overall.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Isles fan here. I never understood why the Leafs went after Tavares when offense was already the Leaf''s strength.

We only had two NHL centers. Why wouldn't we want bring in one of the league's best centers to fill that out?

Made no sense because it's costly.

Of course it makes sense. I have no idea how you figure it doesn't...

Now if he was #1 draft pick that's another story, but where do you guys get the Cap space to fill in the gaps in your defense?

Look at our Cap Friendly page. All is fine and there is room for maneuvering moving forward.

Besides that, the Leafs defense isn't even bad like everyone wants to say. We allowed the 3rd fewest goals in the Eastern Conference last year. We allowed less than Washington, who won the cup. The idea that our defense isn't good enough is objectively and demonstrably wrong.

I think it was a question of not looking before you leaped.

Common. You cannot possibly believe we made some kind of mistake here. I know losing Tavares sucks for you guys, but try to keep it real there guy.

 

[Canada4Gold]

If you don't have Tavares you have open cap space that there's no guarantee you can use on a free agent defencemen as there may never be one that has the same impact that wants to come here. You also have a worse offensive team with only 2 NHL caliber centres so that hole has to be filled anyway.

With Tavares you have an extra free asset. If and it's a big if, we need cap space down the road you are allowed to trade one of the others to get a defencemen.

You improve you team for the now, meanwhile upgrading the total value of your assets so that if the need comes to acquire someone you have guys there to keep the offensive unit strong.

everything else the same 4 elite assets is better than 3 elite assets and cap space. The cap space may never be used as you fantasize it will, and if that opportunity comes available now instead of that 3 elite assets and cap space used for an elite defencemen you are trading 1 of the 4 you currently have for additional assets and now having 3 elite assets and the elite defencemen and the additional assets from a trade that may be another young defencemen with elite upside.

It may seem unnecessary but given the lack of options to improve what everyone says we need to improve adding more assets to the bank is only a good thing. Adding assets where available is a strategy I'm sure all 31 teams would love to employ.

 

[therealkoho]

Jake Virtanen and Chris Tanev

plan the parade

 

[Billerdzzz]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who notices that without an upgrade in D,
the Leafs won't go very deep, into the playoffs.

It looks like we have too many offensive defensemen. Our best physical defensive D
man was Polak. He's now on the Stars, and the Leafs haven't replaced him.

Zaitsev, Reilly, Gardiner, Dermott are all offensive D men. I think we need two
defensive defensemen who won't shy away; going hard into the corners and throwing
bodychecks.

On paper, the offense looks fantastic, being deep at C.

Still, without one or two good, solid defensive D men to take the pressure off Andersen,
it's hard to forsee them going on a deep run.

 

[Billerdzzz]

A team that is as defensively challenged as the Leafs, don't need to look at trading away one of it's better Dmen - even if he had one really tough game.

That sort of knee-jerk reaction is very similar to what the organization did after the 2013 game 7 loss.

You can't make determinations and decisions on a team based on one single game.

We know by now, Gardiner's strengths and weaknesses. We know he can skate, pass and is
fairly good when he's out of his own zone. He also has some speed.

We know now that he isn't good defensively. IMHO, he would only be effective when
paired with a solid defensive guy. Someone who can skate back and make up for Jake's
defensive gaffes.

 

[Billerdzzz]

I would not hesitate to trade Gardiner and Rielly if the return was Drew Doughty.

I dislike Gardiner's constant brain farts game after game after game. Rielly is not a bonafide #1D as he too commits brain farts and does not possess a shot from the point that would break one of Lupul's bones!

It's not just the "brain farts".

In the series loss to the Bruins, it really became apparent how weak the Leafs D is.
How many times did we see Reilly, Gardiner take the body, or go hard into the corners?
I'm giving Dermott a pass, due to his age.

 

[ponder]

That is a really bad trade for the leafs... what happens if Tanev gets injured (hint he will),?you now have a significantly worse defensive unit than last year. On top of that what happens if Dermott can't take over Gardiner's role which is playing with the Matthews line as well as playing the 5th most ES ice time of any defender in the league (thanks Notsince67 lol).

Then on top of that Brown and a 1st, I don't view Virtanen highly either.

It’s certainly a risk, but I think it’s one worth taking. IMO Tanev is a decent bit better than Gards, AND a way better fit for the team. I think Dermott will excel as a 3D too. Brown and Virtanen are IMO similar level players, but Virtanen fills a bigger need - we need physicality more than skill to complement our high skill, low physicality core.

 

[Rehabguy]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who notices that without an upgrade in D,
the Leafs won't go very deep, into the playoffs.

It looks like we have too many offensive defensemen. Our best physical defensive D
man was Polak. He's now on the Stars, and the Leafs haven't replaced him.

Zaitsev, Reilly, Gardiner, Dermott are all offensive D men. I think we need two
defensive defensemen who won't shy away; going hard into the corners and throwing
bodychecks.

On paper, the offense looks fantastic, being deep at C.

Still, without one or two good, solid defensive D men to take the pressure off Andersen,
it's hard to forsee them going on a deep run.

I see it. This should have been the Leaf's #1 priority not Tavares.

 

[Rehabguy]

If you don't have Tavares you have open cap space that there's no guarantee you can use on a free agent defencemen as there may never be one that has the same impact that wants to come here. You also have a worse offensive team with only 2 NHL caliber centres so that hole has to be filled anyway.

With Tavares you have an extra free asset. If and it's a big if, we need cap space down the road you are allowed to trade one of the others to get a defencemen.

You improve you team for the now, meanwhile upgrading the total value of your assets so that if the need comes to acquire someone you have guys there to keep the offensive unit strong.

everything else the same 4 elite assets is better than 3 elite assets and cap space. The cap space may never be used as you fantasize it will, and if that opportunity comes available now instead of that 3 elite assets and cap space used for an elite defencemen you are trading 1 of the 4 you currently have for additional assets and now having 3 elite assets and the elite defencemen and the additional assets from a trade that may be another young defencemen with elite upside.

It may seem unnecessary but given the lack of options to improve what everyone says we need to improve adding more assets to the bank is only a good thing. Adding assets where available is a strategy I'm sure all 31 teams would love to employ.

Hardly "free". Your argument is only true when the asset comes cheaply as in a pick or young prospect. You hobble a team when your asset takes a big bite out of your cap space such that in the future you MUST give up vital assets in order to keep the team somewhat intact. You force yourself into making hard decisions and losing assets you would rather not lose but are forced to let go. So no, I'm not buying this argument.

The whole purpose of the Cap was to create parity in the league such that big market teams could not grab all the assets because they had the resources to do so. Today the name of the game to build a balanced team, I'm not so sure (and neither is the OP) that the Leafs are anywhere close to having accomplished this.

 

[ACC1224]

I see it. This should have been the Leaf's #1 priority not Tavares.

Do you believe Teams make moves in the order their priority list tells them to?
No one would operate like that.

 

[Sypher04]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who notices that without an upgrade in D,
the Leafs won't go very deep, into the playoffs.

It looks like we have too many offensive defensemen. Our best physical defensive D
man was Polak. He's now on the Stars, and the Leafs haven't replaced him.

Zaitsev, Reilly, Gardiner, Dermott are all offensive D men. I think we need two
defensive defensemen who won't shy away; going hard into the corners and throwing
bodychecks.

On paper, the offense looks fantastic, being deep at C.

Still, without one or two good, solid defensive D men to take the pressure off Andersen,
it's hard to forsee them going on a deep run.

We could use a little snarl on our bottom pair in particular but we don't specifically need defensive defensemen. We just need good puck movers who are reliable in their own end imo. More two way defenders.

 

[Sypher04]

I see it. This should have been the Leaf's #1 priority not Tavares.

It's not a matter of others not seeing our D likely will need an addition (at least 1). The problem is those probably the right player just hasn't presented itself yet. Tavares was available and was interested in us. At that point you're all in on Tavares. The defense will be sorted one way or another. We don't need big expensive defenseman. Just a couple shrewd additions and internal improvement. My guess is they wanna see what they have in a few people and will make a move to bolster our blue line in season.

Ideally we need a top 4 rhd. There simply aren't many of them up for grabs. It'll take time.

 

[Rehabguy]

Do you believe Teams make moves in the order their priority list tells them to?
No one would operate like that.

Sorry this statement makes no sense. The word "priority" implies an order of decisions. Who states they priorities and goes to the bottom of the list of those priorities. A pretty stupid person IMO.

 

[Notsince67]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who notices that without an upgrade in D,
the Leafs won't go very deep, into the playoffs.

It looks like we have too many offensive defensemen. Our best physical defensive D
man was Polak. He's now on the Stars, and the Leafs haven't replaced him.

Zaitsev, Reilly, Gardiner, Dermott are all offensive D men. I think we need two
defensive defensemen who won't shy away; going hard into the corners and throwing
bodychecks.

On paper, the offense looks fantastic, being deep at C.

Still, without one or two good, solid defensive D men to take the pressure off Andersen,
it's hard to forsee them going on a deep run.

I disagree. The importance of D is in the transition and exiting the defensive zone. Zone denial is important but of secondary importance. The leafs see a lot of shots on goal because they have difficulty moving the puck out except through the stretch pass. They might do this well at this but guys like polak couldn't even execute this without icing it. In particular, controlled exits are a real problem on the right side.

 

[Sypher04]

Also Borgman easily replaces Polak in terms of physical edge while being better in several other respects. He never should have come out of the lineup imo

Also Zaitsev has an underrated physical game

 

[Erndog]

I did not realize the Leafs can not improve their defence over the next 7 years.

Frig, we are screwed. Better pray Hainsey can play 7 more years.

 

[Rehabguy]

It's not a matter of others not seeing our D likely will need an addition (at least 1). The problem is those probably the right player just hasn't presented itself yet. Tavares was available and was interested in us. At that point you're all in on Tavares. The defense will be sorted one way or another. We don't need big expensive defenseman. Just a couple shrewd additions and internal improvement. My guess is they wanna see what they have in a few people and will make a move to bolster our blue line in season.

Ideally we need a top 4 rhd. There simply aren't many of them up for grabs. It'll take time.

Still a faulty argument. Maybe not this year, but how about next year, or the year following that? Will you have the cap space to get a #1 D then? Probably not because you took on a contract you didn't need. Or if you were able to clear some cap space it was at a cost of other vital assets you would rather not have given up like a promising YOUNG forward. Instead you are stuck with an aging vet who's now past his prime.

 

[Erndog]

Sorry this statement makes no sense. The word "priority" implies an order of decisions. Who states they priorities and goes to the bottom of the list of those priorities. A pretty stupid person IMO.

Honestly, I thought it was a stupid statement as well but then I thought of it and he's right.

Teams have multiple needs. EVERY team. You list them in terms of priorities, sure, say #1 through 5....

JUST because something is #1 doesn't mean you can't fill out #2 or #3 before that. #1 may not present itself at all during the offseason (for example). Doesn't mean you can't fill out #2/3/4/etc

OPPORTUNITIES exist and when they present themselves you go for it.

 

[Sypher04]

Still a faulty argument. Maybe not this year, but how about next year, or the year following that? Will you have the cap space to get a #1 D then? Probably not because you took on a contract you didn't need.

The faulty argument is the narrative we need one. We are doubling down on what makes our team so good which is clearly offense. Such was the strategy in Washington & Pittsburgh before them both successfully. John Carlsson had a monster year but the trick is he was signed for a favourable contract before and some would argue hes no more of a #1 than Rielly is. We will obviously need some internal guys to fill out roles for us, and some big ones, or it wont work but that's the reality of any good team in a hard cap. Tavares or no Tavares.

If signing Tavares is such a bad thing why is it Tampa who has more significant cap concerns than we do was also all in to get him?

 

[Rehabguy]

Honestly, I thought it was a stupid statement as well but then I thought of it and he's right.

Teams have multiple needs. EVERY team. You list them in terms of priorities, sure, say #1 through 5....

JUST because something is #1 doesn't mean you can't fill out #2 or #3 before that. #1 may not present itself at all during the offseason (for example). Doesn't mean you can't fill out #2/3/4/etc

OPPORTUNITIES exist and when they present themselves you go for it.

Then the Leafs have needs not priorities. If you believe this argument, ok. I don't believe this argument. In my opinion you have a priority and it's defense.

 

[Rehabguy]

The faulty argument is the narrative we need one. We are doubling down on what makes our team so good which is clearly offense. Such was the strategy in Washington & Pittsburgh before them both successfully. John Carlsson had a monster year but the trick is he was signed for a favourable contract before and some would argue hes no more of a #1 than Rielly is. We will obviously need some internal guys to fill out roles for us, and some big ones, or it wont work but that's the reality of any good team in a hard cap. Tavares or no Tavares.

If signing Tavares is such a bad thing why is it Tampa who has more significant cap concerns than we do was also all in to get him?

It's also the strategy that sank the Islander's season last year and John Tavares happened to be the centerpiece of that failed strategy.