Around the NHL 2024-2025

[Davimir Tarablad]

A fully healthy Jets team not going down without a fight

Meanwhile, they'll have to break their 6 game road losing streak to survive again

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Scheifele is such a flopper.

I really hate that guy.

 

[Majorityof1]

Matthews, Marner and the absence of greatness in big games

How do you describe the absence of greatness? How do you process another lacklustre performance from Toronto's most important core players? Justin Bourne reacts to Toronto's crushing 6-1 defeat in Game 5.

www.sportsnet.ca

I think this article does a pretty good job of analyzing the Matthews/Marner situation

He does not call either of them fine, he calls them both great, without a dawg in them.

He also excuses Nylander who is a negative +/- while getting 70.5% ozone start rate and not being the focus of the other teams best Defensive players.

Barkov has played more against the Matthews/Marner/Knies line than any other forwards in the whole playoffs, including the first round. He's been out 167% as much against Marner as Nylander. Yet Nylander is a - and Marner is not. But we excuse Nylander?

It literally reads that assists and defense don't matter if you don't show grrr anger.

 

[ArenaRat]

After the Blues were bounced I was kind of rooting for Chief/Toronto to exercise their demons. It's angst-inducing to watch a team that you don't hate crumble under the weight of their playoff failure legacy. I have no such issues with Edmonton, Dallas, San Jose, and several other franchise that repulse me, but I have never hated TO, even back in the Norris days.

I agree with whoever said that TO's ongoing struggles on D are creating a lot of their offensive issues, and IMHO this current debate ignores another key factor -- the Florida Panthers. This is not a team you're going to have a lot of success against when your D is caving to the forecheck and can't offer anything offensively.

Despite another apparent playoff failure, I'd still be thrilled to get Marner. I haven't seen every minute of this series, but to my naked eye only Nylander has been consistently getting good looks, which he has mostly created on his own by jetting up the seam. No one else for TO has looked explosive and we Blues fans know that one explosive player out there on his own can be corralled.

 

[Brian39]

I really, really, really want to see Toronto win tonight.

Seeing a game 7 in Toronto where they either lose in front of a seething home crowd or win to exorcise their demons sounds a hell of a lot more fun than watching Florida win at home in a game that is being treated like (and feels like) a forgone conclusion. I also just flat out don't like how dirty the Panthers have become. I don't really want to see them repeat and even if they get past Toronto, I'd like them to have to take another game of wear/tear while Carolina rests.

I expect Florida to end it tonight, but the NHL fan in me wants to see the maximum drama/chaos of the Leafs forcing a do-or-die game 7 in a building that just booed them off the ice.

 

[TheOrganist]

After the Blues were bounced I was kind of rooting for Chief/Toronto to exercise their demons. It's angst-inducing to watch a team that you don't hate crumble under the weight of their playoff failure legacy. I have no such issues with Edmonton, Dallas, San Jose, and several other franchise that repulse me, but I have never hated TO, even back in the Norris days.

I agree with whoever said that TO's ongoing struggles on D are creating a lot of their offensive issues, and IMHO this current debate ignores another key factor -- the Florida Panthers. This is not a team you're going to have a lot of success against when your D is caving to the forecheck and can't offer anything offensively.

Despite another apparent playoff failure, I'd still be thrilled to get Marner. I haven't seen every minute of this series, but to my naked eye only Nylander has been consistently getting good looks, which he has mostly created on his own by jetting up the seam. No one else for TO has looked explosive and we Blues fans know that one explosive player out there on his own can be corralled.

I mean, they had the same problems with the Bruins. You think Carolina will be any easier if Toronto miraculously wins the next two the way the Canes smother teams and own possession for 70% of the game. Winnipeg. Vegas. All of these teams are big and good. Sure, some matchups are more favorable than others but the deeper you go in the playoffs you're going to face really good teams. The "well yes, but it's the Panthers" is a pretty big cop out. We're now in Year 7 of the Marner/Matthews playoff era...

 

[Brian39]

I mean, they had the same problems with the Bruins. You think Carolina will be any easier if Toronto miraculously wins the next two the way the Canes smother teams and own possession for 70% of the game. Winnipeg. Vegas. All of these teams are big and good. Sure, some matchups are more favorable than others but the deeper you go in the playoffs you're going to face really good teams. The "well yes, but it's the Panthers" is a pretty big cop out. We're now in Year 7 of the Marner/Matthews playoff era...

I don't think that Toronto's only playoff issue has been running into great teams.

But I think that until someone proves otherwise, the Panthers are the biggest/meanest/best team on the block. Defending champs. Back-to-back defending Eastern Conference champs. They made quick work of the Lightning in round 1 and are an incredibly physical team. I think it is more than reasonable to say that the Panthers are the 'hardest' out in hockey right now and that things would absolutely be 'easier' against other teams. Especially if we're just talking about the specific area of a blueline dealing with the forecheck and physicality.

Carolina does a lot of things incredibly well, but I don't think that they forecheck as well as the Panthers. They control possession by stripping pucks off you in the neutral zone, stripping pucks off you in their own zone, their D retrieving pucks exceptionally well, and then being incredibly good at keeping the puck once they have it. They aren't flying into the zone with multiple forwards looking to bang bodies nearly as much as Florida does.

That doesn't mean that the Leafs' failures are fully excused or are fully a result of playing the Panthers. But to answer your question, yes. I think things will absolutely be easier on the Toronto D and transition if they manage to get to the next round.

 

[TheOrganist]

I don't think that Toronto's only playoff issue has been running into great teams.

But I think that until someone proves otherwise, the Panthers are the biggest/meanest/best team on the block. Defending champs. Back-to-back defending Eastern Conference champs. They made quick work of the Lightning in round 1 and are an incredibly physical team. I think it is more than reasonable to say that the Panthers are the 'hardest' out in hockey right now and that things would absolutely be 'easier' against other teams. Especially if we're just talking about the specific area of a blueline dealing with the forecheck and physicality.

Carolina does a lot of things incredibly well, but I don't think that they forecheck as well as the Panthers. They control possession by stripping pucks off you in the neutral zone, stripping pucks off you in their own zone, their D retrieving pucks exceptionally well, and then being incredibly good at keeping the puck once they have it. They aren't flying into the zone with multiple forwards looking to bang bodies nearly as much as Florida does.

That doesn't mean that the Leafs' failures are fully excused or are fully a result of playing the Panthers. But to answer your question, yes. I think things will absolutely be easier on the Toronto D and transition if they manage to get to the next round.

I agree that how the draw shakes out in terms opponents is an important part of playoff success (the Blues drawing LA/CHI in the mid-2010's, i.e.) but I mean, at some point, you need to get over the hump by YEAR SEVEN or it's fair for management to infer that the current makeup of your core players are not good enough and you have to stop tinkering at the margins.

 

[TheOrganist]

I really, really, really want to see Toronto win tonight.

Seeing a game 7 in Toronto where they either lose in front of a seething home crowd or win to exorcise their demons sounds a hell of a lot more fun than watching Florida win at home in a game that is being treated like (and feels like) a forgone conclusion. I also just flat out don't like how dirty the Panthers have become. I don't really want to see them repeat and even if they get past Toronto, I'd like them to have to take another game of wear/tear while Carolina rests.

I expect Florida to end it tonight, but the NHL fan in me wants to see the maximum drama/chaos of the Leafs forcing a do-or-die game 7 in a building that just booed them off the ice.

I bet Toronto +600 to win the East before the playoffs....definitely rooting for them to figure it out but yes, def. has a "foregone conclusion" feel.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

No one forechecks as well as the Panthers. They are on another level. If a puck moves D to D with even the slightest wobble - in the skates, kinda soft, weird bounce off the end boards - the next thing you know there's two Panthers pinning the guy who was wide open a moment ago. It's almost scary to watch, b/c you know if you mess up even 3%, it's over for you lol.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I haven’t been following the Hockey Canada sexual assault case much the last week or so but just came across this. The jury was dismissed but no mistrial declared. The judge will now decide the verdict.

Jurors were dismissed after one submitted a note to the judge on Thursday saying some members felt lawyers for the defence of one of the accused were making fun of them when they were walking in.

So question for @Brian39 (or anyone else with a law background), how odd is this? The lawyers for the defense were inappropriate twice now apparently? Sounds like the judge brought the lawyers together after she received the complaint from the jury, the defense proposed they continue on as a judge-only trial and the prosecution agreed, perhaps reluctantly. Also, curious if there’s any data on what type of trial leads to more or less convictions - jury or judge decided.

 

[SirPaste]

I haven’t been following the Hockey Canada sexual assault case much the last week or so but just came across this. The jury was dismissed but no mistrial declared. The judge will now decide the verdict.





So question for @Brian39 (or anyone else with a law background), how odd is this? The lawyers for the defense were inappropriate twice now apparently? Sounds like the judge brought the lawyers together after she received the complaint from the jury, the defense proposed they continue on as a judge-only trial and the prosecution agreed, perhaps reluctantly. Also, curious if there’s any data on what type of trial leads to more or less convictions - jury or judge decided.

My understanding is that the lawyers weren't being inappropriate this time however one juror was being insecure and wrote a note saying they were making fun of her (which would be an insane thing for a lawyer to do unless they were purposely trying to blow the case). The lawyers said this would make it impossible for this juror or others to be fair and impartial so they asked for a mistrial. The judge decided to make it a judge only decision and dismissed the jury to avoid a mistrial.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

My understanding is that the lawyers weren't being inappropriate this time however one juror was being insecure and wrote a note saying they were making fun of her (which would be an insane thing for a lawyer to do unless they were purposely trying to blow the case). The lawyers said this would make it impossible for this juror or others to be fair and impartial so they asked for a mistrial. The judge decided to make it a judge only decision and dismissed the jury to avoid a mistrial.

I found it interesting that both times it was one (or both) of Formenton attorneys.

 

[SirPaste]

I found it interesting that both times it was one (or both) of Formenton attorneys.

Definitely, the first go round seemed like a really stupid thing to do by the attorney. But this second instance was just two lawyers talking to each other pre trial and the juror was thinking they were looking at her and laughing, the judge herself said that she didn't notice any odd behavior from the attorneys but they do seem odd for sure. Just can't imagine any defense attorney purposely offending or doing anything to lose favor of a juror during a trial, that would go against their entire job.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I found it interesting that both times it was one (or both) of Formenton attorneys.

Yeah, it’s odd for sure. I don’t really have an opinion and don’t really want to speculate unless l saw what these jurors saw but it is certainly odd that it happened twice with two different jurors in two completely different juries.

 

[Majorityof1]

I haven’t been following the Hockey Canada sexual assault case much the last week or so but just came across this. The jury was dismissed but no mistrial declared. The judge will now decide the verdict.





So question for @Brian39 (or anyone else with a law background), how odd is this? The lawyers for the defense were inappropriate twice now apparently? Sounds like the judge brought the lawyers together after she received the complaint from the jury, the defense proposed they continue on as a judge-only trial and the prosecution agreed, perhaps reluctantly. Also, curious if there’s any data on what type of trial leads to more or less convictions - jury or judge decided.

No clue in Canada. In America, you have a fundamental Constitutional right to a jury trial that can only be taken if you waive it. Even if one of the lawyers somehow voided that right by their conduct, there are 4 other defendants.

Doing very quick research, Canadians have a constitutional right to jury trial as well for offenses with a potential punishment of 5 years or more. So either they waived their right for some reason or the crimes don't carry a potential 5 year jail time. While defendants waiving the right to a jury trial seems more common than in US, I couldn't find anything (again a quick search) that would suggest ots common in Canada to start with a jury and then finish without one.

 

[BlueDream]

It’s clear that the players are innocent and should be allowed back in the NHL. Zero evidence of any wrongdoing. The girl’s story is shaky at best, and the witness testimony doesn’t paint her behavior in the room in a positive light.

But hey, good thing the internet proclaimed these guys as guilty before the trial even began and wanted to burn them at the stake immediately, as usual.

 

[SirPaste]

It’s clear that the players are innocent and should be allowed back in the NHL. Zero evidence of any wrongdoing. The girl’s story is shaky at best, and the witness testimony doesn’t paint her behavior in the room in a positive light.

But hey, good thing the internet proclaimed these guys as guilty before the trial even began and wanted to burn them at the stake immediately, as usual.

I haven't paid super close attention but from everything I've read it seems that a not guilty verdict is the most likely outcome, like I said though I haven't been following super close and just judging off the things I've read so could be way off base.

 

[Xerloris]

We're now in Year 7 of the Marner/Matthews playoff era...

We're now in Year 7 of the Marner/Matthews choking era...

fixed it for ya.

I bet Toronto +600 to win the East before the playoffs....definitely rooting for them to figure it out but yes, def. has a "foregone conclusion" feel.

was it more than 1$?

 

[Majorityof1]

It’s clear that the players are innocent and should be allowed back in the NHL. Zero evidence of any wrongdoing. The girl’s story is shaky at best, and the witness testimony doesn’t paint her behavior in the room in a positive light.

But hey, good thing the internet proclaimed these guys as guilty before the trial even began and wanted to burn them at the stake immediately, as usual.

A sitting Canadian judge well versed in Canadian law saw the prosecutions proffer of evidence and determined there was enough there to go to trial. But sure, the case shoukd be dismissed as some random hockey fan in US who knows nothing about Canadoan law thinks it's clear they are innocent based on stuff they read on the internet.

 

[BlueDream]

A sitting Canadian judge well versed in Canadian law saw the prosecutions proffer of evidence and determined there was enough there to go to trial. But sure, the case shoukd be dismissed as some random hockey fan in US who knows nothing about Canadoan law thinks it's clear they are innocent based on stuff they read on the internet.

The police literally closed their initial investigation because there wasn’t enough there. But this went to trial due to the public pressure and the high-profile nature of the case. That’s really it.

Clearly you haven’t followed it and haven’t paid attention to what has been presented in court. It’s clear what decision will be made, I don’t need to be the judge.

 

[Drubilly]

The police literally closed their initial investigation because there wasn’t enough there. But this went to trial due to the public pressure and the high-profile nature of the case. That’s really it.

Clearly you haven’t followed it and haven’t paid attention to what has been presented in court. It’s clear what decision will be made, I don’t need to be the judge.

But instead you just want to be butthurt online that I posted an opinion because you’re desperate for the players to be guilty. I mean after all, you’re the most negative person on this forum and have to constantly find things to hate on, so this all checks out.

Whatever rando

 

[Majorityof1]

The police literally closed their initial investigation because there wasn’t enough there. But this went to trial due to the public pressure and the high-profile nature of the case. That’s really it.

Clearly you haven’t followed it and haven’t paid attention to what has been presented in court. It’s clear what decision will be made, I don’t need to be the judge.

I re-read what you wrote. You never said it shouldn't have gone to court, just that they are innocent and should be allowed back in the NHL. I apologize for my assumption.

I don't want the players to be guilty or innocent. I want justice to be done and the process to play out. If they are found innocent by a fair trial, I won't be "butthurt".

 

[Brian39]

So question for @Brian39 (or anyone else with a law background), how odd is this? The lawyers for the defense were inappropriate twice now apparently?

It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in a high profile case. In my decade as a litigator, I've never seen (or spoken to a colleague who has had) a juror tell the judge that they felt a lawyer in the case was ridiculing them. Truly bizarre.

Sounds like the judge brought the lawyers together after she received the complaint from the jury, the defense proposed they continue on as a judge-only trial and the prosecution agreed, perhaps reluctantly.

From what I have read, this is only a partial summary. Yesterday, the Crown requested that the court engage in a detailed inquiry where the court (and potentially the attorneys; it is unclear) would question each juror individually about their ability to remain impartial in an attempt to continue with this jury. The defense requested a mistrial, arguing that their clients clearly couldn't be assured a fair trial by the jury at this point. A mistrial would mean starting from scratch with a new jury. Then, the defense said that they would waive the right to a jury and continue with this trial with the judge acting as the fact finder. The Crown objected and the court adjourned for the day to consider the arguments.

Today, the judge ruled that the jury must be discharged and put it to the Crown whether that would mean a mistrial or continuing the current trial with the judge as the fact finder. At that point, the Crown agreed to continue rather than starting a new case from scratch.

Also, curious if there’s any data on what type of trial leads to more or less convictions - jury or judge decided.

Any data would be largely meaningless, because you generally only elect to have a bench trial if you believe it offers a strategic advantage. The overwhelming consensus in the profession is that you are more likely to get a not guilty verdict (or a mistrial because they can't reach a unanimous decision) from a jury. And you also generally have a greater chance of appeal on a jury conviction than a judge conviction. You only give up those advantages if there is something about the specific judge, or specific facts/aspects of the case that you believe favor your client in front of a judge vs a jury. So even if the data says that there are more acquittals by judges, that would be skewed because it is the defense who self-selects the sample going in front of judges. Because these are all fact/judge specific, there is just no reasonable way to 'control' for them.

In this specific case, I think that the defense prefers the judge rendering the verdict over a mistrial because their cross examination has gone exceptionally well so far. A mistrial only helps their clients so much. If the alleged victim were willing to testify again, her and the Crown have now seen the defense playbook and would almost certainly be more polished and prepared next time. If the alleged victim declines to cooperate in another trial, then the state won't proceed and they would walk. That's a good outcome, but that wouldn't rehabilitate their images nearly as much as a not guilty verdict would. If these guys have any aspirations of getting back to the NHL, a not guilty verdict is substantially better PR than what would absolutely be perceived as 'getting off on a technicality.'

No clue in Canada. In America, you have a fundamental Constitutional right to a jury trial that can only be taken if you waive it. Even if one of the lawyers somehow voided that right by their conduct, there are 4 other defendants.

Doing very quick research, Canadians have a constitutional right to jury trial as well for offenses with a potential punishment of 5 years or more. So either they waived their right for some reason or the crimes don't carry a potential 5 year jail time. While defendants waiving the right to a jury trial seems more common than in US, I couldn't find anything (again a quick search) that would suggest ots common in Canada to start with a jury and then finish without one.

These 5 defendants had the fundamental right to a jury. They offered to waive it yesterday and then did waive it today. They decided that they would prefer for the judge to render a verdict based on the existing evidence (plus the evidence that will continue to be brought in the coming weeks) over starting a new trial.

 

[STL fan in MN]

It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in a high profile case. In my decade as a litigator, I've never seen (or spoken to a colleague who has had) a juror tell the judge that they felt a lawyer in the case was ridiculing them. Truly bizarre.



From what I have read, this is only a partial summary. Yesterday, the Crown requested that the court engage in a detailed inquiry where the court (and potentially the attorneys; it is unclear) would question each juror individually about their ability to remain impartial in an attempt to continue with this jury. The defense requested a mistrial, arguing that their clients clearly couldn't be assured a fair trial by the jury at this point. A mistrial would mean starting from scratch with a new jury. Then, the defense said that they would waive the right to a jury and continue with this trial with the judge acting as the fact finder. The Crown objected and the court adjourned for the day to consider the arguments.

Today, the judge ruled that the jury must be discharged and put it to the Crown whether that would mean a mistrial or continuing the current trial with the judge as the fact finder. At that point, the Crown agreed to continue rather than starting a new case from scratch.



Any data would be largely meaningless, because you generally only elect to have a bench trial if you believe it offers a strategic advantage. The overwhelming consensus in the profession is that you are more likely to get a not guilty verdict (or a mistrial because they can't reach a unanimous decision) from a jury. And you also generally have a greater chance of appeal on a jury conviction than a judge conviction. You only give up those advantages if there is something about the specific judge, or specific facts/aspects of the case that you believe favor your client in front of a judge vs a jury. So even if the data says that there are more acquittals by judges, that would be skewed because it is the defense who self-selects the sample going in front of judges. Because these are all fact/judge specific, there is just no reasonable way to 'control' for them.

In this specific case, I think that the defense prefers the judge rendering the verdict over a mistrial because their cross examination has gone exceptionally well so far. A mistrial only helps their clients so much. If the alleged victim were willing to testify again, her and the Crown have now seen the defense playbook and would almost certainly be more polished and prepared next time. If the alleged victim declines to cooperate in another trial, then the state won't proceed and they would walk. That's a good outcome, but that wouldn't rehabilitate their images nearly as much as a not guilty verdict would. If these guys have any aspirations of getting back to the NHL, a not guilty verdict is substantially better PR than what would absolutely be perceived as 'getting off on a technicality.'



These 5 defendants had the fundamental right to a jury. They offered to waive it yesterday and then did waive it today. They decided that they would prefer for the judge to render a verdict based on the existing evidence (plus the evidence that will continue to be brought in the coming weeks) over starting a new trial.

Thanks for that, Brian. My general sense was that a trial by judge would slightly benefit the prosecution but what you say about it being a case by case basis makes perfect sense.

Given what you said about the defense cross examination going well, are you surprised at all the prosecution elected to continue than start over? The girl did just go through 9 straight days of cross examination so yeah, maybe she’s just not willing to go through it again.