Brad Treliving is doing a great job.

[IPS]

You seem to have misunderstood both what was being discussed back then and right now.

No I understood it fine, you do a very fine job exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

 

[Dekes For Days]

No I understood it fine

Clearly not, because nothing about what I said is hypocritical or contradictory. Outside of potentially big core decisions, both GMs have been able to make changes, especially when it comes to something as minor as what goalie to pick.

 

[IPS]

?
He held up his end of the deal.

What I mean is that Tavares' horrendous performance this series has flown totally under the radar, and he's even had some media goons defending him too.

 

[Tak7]

What I mean is that Tavares' horrendous performance this series has flown totally under the radar, and he's even had some media goons defending him too.

What were your expectations of Tavares this series?

Because we got exactly what I was expecting we would get from him. which I'm fine with.

 

[IPS]

What were your expectations of Tavares this series?

Because we got exactly what I was expecting we would get from him. which I'm fine with.

My expectations were more than 2 points in 7 games.

Treliving got shafted with an $11M boat anchor that got doubled up in production by Max Domi in the playoffs. In fact Max Domi looked better at #2C than Tavares just about every time he was put in that situation.

 

[tuckerintensity]

Contenders win.

Well that's just untrue. Lots of contenders lose. Every year in every sport. Some contenders never win. Being a contender and winning are not one in the same.

This isn't to say that Dubas built a contender, though he certainly was a big part of building an incredibly good team, only to say that the statement is incredibly untrue on the most basic level.

 

[Aashir]

...I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, or what you're referring to, or what this has to do with contenders.

Stats become “arbitrarily specific” when you deem them to be

?
He held up his end of the deal.

His end of the deal was ppg during a 100 point ross win, he gives us ppg during 120-150 point ross wins. He should’ve been a top 10-15 player for the first 3-4 years of his contract, but he fell off year 2. I wouldn’t say he held up anything, especially when you look at playoffs

 

[Dekes For Days]

Stats become “arbitrarily specific” when you deem them to be

Criteria for contender status becomes "arbitrarily specific" when something that doesn't determine contender status is used, and in such a specific way that it would only make a determination about one team.

 

[notbias]

I'm not convinced a Dubas built team would last more than 5 games against the Bruins where we experienced very awkward situations with our 3 amigos.

Dubas sucked at building well balanced teams so those teams can't survive even the slightest dip in core performance.

This bottom pairing D some people cry about are a big reason we dominated the majority of the last 9 regulation periods.

We didn't dominate...

People wonder why we looked good for 2 games and got on a roll, there is your answer.

Well that's just untrue. Lots of contenders lose. Every year in every sport. Some contenders never win. Being a contender and winning are not one in the same.

This isn't to say that Dubas built a contender, though he certainly was a big part of building an incredibly good team, only to say that the statement is incredibly untrue on the most basic level.

Vegas was not a contender this year... terribly built team

 

[IPS]

Vegas was not a contender this year... terribly built team

I swear to god it's like trying to reason with toddlers.

Vegas was considered a contender because of their past playoff performances, they've been to the cup finals, the conference finals, and have won it all as recent as last year. Toront has none of these things going for them.

How are you so daft that this even needs to be explained.

 

[notbias]

I swear to god it's like trying to reason with toddlers.

Vegas was considered a contender because of their past playoff performances, they've been to the cup finals, the conference finals, and have won it all as recent as last year. Toront has none of these things going for them.

How are you so daft that this even needs to be explained.

Is Tampa still a contender? What is the cut-off?

Assuming the NYI were a contender due to somewhat recent success.

No way Bruins were a contender, they haven't done anything since 2019.

Who were the contenders this year? You likely will include people who don't fit the criteria of having some recent playoff success.

If a team turned over 75% of their team in 2 years but made the finals 2 years ago, are they still a contender?

There is no a definition of contender, it is whatever the person feels like saying.

 

[All Mod Cons]

The never ending patience Dubas fans had, has abruptly disappeared. We have to give Brad 5 years to truly build up his resume to the level of Kyle's. You don't just become the greatest ever Leafs GM over night.

 

[IPS]

Is Tampa still a contender? What is the cut-off?

Well I can safely tell you that just about every cup winner in recent history (save for outliers like 2015 LA who missed the playoffs after winning the cup) is largely considered a contender by just about every reputable mind in hockey.

Can we start here or am I moving a bit too fast for you?

 

[notbias]

Well I can safely tell you that just about every cup winner in recent history (save for outliers like 2015 LA who missed the playoffs after winning the cup) is largely considered a contender by just about every reputable mind in hockey.

Can we start here or am I moving a bit too fast for you?

Start there, but please tell me who else is a contender from the playoff teams.

You address one of many questions I had.

I want to know the definition of a contender.

Islanders have had recent success, are they a contender this year?

Boston had no success since 2019, assuming that doesn't make them a contender anymore.

 

[leafs in five]

(Apologies for the length of this post...obviously, feel free to skip or ignore!)

Well, it seems like Defense for Dubas has gone supernova during the dying days of the season. There's been plenty of hot gas spewed out over the years but perhaps they will finally lose some energy as their shining star fades into the background. Now, I hope you don't mind me indulging myself a bit with a retrospective, as I've slowly moved towards becoming a Treliving supporter and I think analysing the support he gets -- or doesn't get -- as GM (the title of this thread) goes hand-in-hand and overlaps with his predecessor and the attacks against him by Dubas apologists. So, I'm going to take some time to look back on what I've long considered to be the strange and curious Dubasite phenomenon after having observed it on HFBoards for years (mostly) from the periphery.

Why strange and curious? Well, to start, just look at the vast number of posts and the sheer verbiage defending all things Dubas from the small cabal of prolific posters who we're all too familiar with. The time, energy and emotion required is significant. But, how can anyone truly CARE so much for a GM? So much frantic intensity, so many hours typing out lengthy, anonymised arguments defending a GM who:
- is a stranger who doesn't know they exist
- stopped playing organised hockey at age 14
- was given his first job in management as a nepotism hire by the team his dad and grandfather worked for
- few people outside of the Soo ever heard of before he became Leafs Assistant GM
- is not a former player or coach

Please note I'm not rendering judgement (yet) on how good a job Dubas did or didn't do as Leafs GM. I'm pointing out how Dubas' pedigree is seemingly lacking in qualities that make him an obvious choice for such loyal fandom. Please also note I haven't mentioned the most glaring reason Dubas' detractors point to: the disparity between regular season success and playoff failure. This is something that arguably comes after the zealotry had already started to ramp up. For me, it's always been far easier to comprehend why Dubas became and still is scorned by many Leafs fans and pundits.

Perhaps the fandom started, therefore, simply because he was young, photogenic and had successfully marketed himself as having newfangled ideas -- he was hockey's Billy Beane, according to the publicity of the time. Dubas was presented to us as being proficient with fresh-faced analytics and as not reliant on the failed tactics of bumpy-knuckled, gap-toothed old boys (like yours truly). Analytics undoubtedly can be interesting and useful in sports. 'Moneyball' is a good book and an even better movie, but it exaggerates the role of analytics in the onfield success of the A's in those years and understates the contributions of established star players and experienced coaches. Analytics are a pivotal part of NHL teams' approaches, no doubt, but I think it's also vital to have people running a team who personally know what it's like to bleed on the bench. Dubas doesn't. He also always struck me as being a bit shallow and, frankly, fairly juvenile and cliched in the way he articulated himself. Is he shrewder in private? Possibly, although the circumstances of his firing suggest otherwise. Outwardly at least, Treliving appears wiser, less attention-seeking and much more down-to-earth to me -- he seems like he's more of a real hockey guy who's actually been in the trenches.

But, ultimately, it shouldn't be about personalities. We should focus on actual (not just expected!) outcomes, as well as on consistent team success (especially in the post-season) when judging a GM's performance. Of course, the playoff failures are a matter of record. But, for me, Dubas was mediocre at best in the role throughout his tenure, and not just because of the lack of playoff success. The whole Marner contract saga -- the negotiations, the number/term and the aftermath -- sickened me and soured me on Dubas (and on Marner and his camp) in the early going. I grudgingly accepted suspension-machine Kadri probably had to go at the time but hated the soft return. I cringed at the Foligno, Mrazek and Murray moves. I despaired at losing Hyman. Many of us will remember the discussion thread here on Dubas' supposed best moments a while back; I recall a notable absence of posts in there advocating for Dubas' best moves as GM. To this day, I'm not sure what anyone here, particularly his most ardent supporters, would agree on as his 'greatest' move: is it the Muzzin trade, before injuries took their toll? That would get my vote -- it wasn't Dubas' fault he broke down. Is it getting Schenn, O'Reilly and Acciari last year for a few weeks? I liked all three (especially the prodigal son Schenn) but who knows for certain if Dubas could have retained any of them -- I tend to doubt it given the contracts they got elsewhere. Late Dubas-era adds McCabe and Knies are promising and so he deserves credit for both; McCabe is turning into a real beauty, and Knies too, but any continued/future success for both will be developed on Treliving's watch and within his system. So, given the lack of pro hockey experience in his pedigree, the utter lack of playoff success during his tenure, the contract overpayments, the trades for damaged goods and the relative dearth of long-term character, why the never-say-die, past and ongoing Defense for Dubas?

Because of what I saw as the absence of bona fide reasons to become a vocal supporter of Dubas, I was for a long time bewildered by how Dubas could gain such persistent, unconditional fandom when GM/executives like HoF legends Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Rob Blake, Ron Francis, Cam Neely and, yes, Brendan Shanahan have never seemed to be granted the same level of adulation in their current roles. So, I have now come to agree with some of the veteran posters I follow here about how this strange and curious phenomenon was/is actually never about Dubas' qualities. It's simply just about a few attention-seeking posters needing validation -- something commonly found on millions of discussion forums about a zillion different topics, I suppose. For some, the need to say 'I'm right, you're wrong' is a potent stimulus. I would argue that, as Dubas' reputation tanked and the consensus went against him, the few who had fallen for him needed to double down and thus 'Dubasite' entered the lexicon in Leafland.

I tested this theory a while back with a couple of my own posts, which predictably prompted some hyper-emotional reactions about Shanahan and Treliving, depicting the former as an impulsive backstabber who was completely unjustified in firing Dubas, justifying calling the latter a clown from the day he was hired and before he'd made a move as GM, and demonstrating constant fealty to the Defense for Dubas above all. Therefore, in my opinion, the most likely explanation is that fragile egos (and a seemingly limitless amount of spare time!) fuel much of the tedious, strange and curious Dubasite phenomenon.

(I'm grateful to anyone who had the patience to read this -- and thanks in advance for any responses. Hopefully we'll see some significant changes this offseason and I, for one, would like to see Treliving back).

couple points:
- in my opinion people who dislike/hate/blame him for the team's issues spend more words on Dubas on here than the Dubists. or anyway, note the "absence of posts advocating for his best moves as GM"
- on that point did he trade for Hyman? if so McKegg for Hyman is a good move even if he let Hyman walk
- "failed tactics of bumpy-knuckled, gap-toothed old boys" understates what it was like under Burke, Nonis, Poulin etc who wore their ignorance proudly, tanked without intending to, and actually mortgaged the future on mediocre or worse teams. and on presentation e.g. Burke's trading floor tie knot always seemed every bit as affected to me as the Dubas bookworm thing.
- feels kind of rich to mock the sheer verbiage spent on defending Dubas in a 1500 word essay

 

[Dreakmur]

Well that's just untrue. Lots of contenders lose. Every year in every sport. Some contenders never win. Being a contender and winning are not one in the same.

Contenders win a series or two.

This isn't to say that Dubas built a contender, though he certainly was a big part of building an incredibly good team, only to say that the statement is incredibly untrue on the most basic level.

He built an excellent regular season team, but the play-offs are different.

 

[IPS]

I want to know the definition of a contender.

A team that the hockey world thinks has a higher than average chance at winning the cup.

Usually it's teams that have more than 1 playoff series win in 8 years.

 

[notbias]

The never ending patience Dubas fans had, has abruptly disappeared. We have to give Brad 5 years to truly build up his resume to the level of Kyle's. You don't just become the greatest ever Leafs GM over night.

I think you give Brad some time too.

His first year was bad, but see what he can do in year 2 and then go from there.

Dubas was stagnant most years, which is better than Brad so far, which is unfortunate.

Brad built a team with less success than last year, hopefully, he brings in more of a scoring touch instead of focusing on building Calgary 2.0.

If he can learn, great, there is a lot of cheap depth coming in and he has a lot of cap space for the second year in a row, I hope he uses it better.

A team that the hockey world thinks has a higher than average chance at winning the cup.

Usually it's teams that have more than 1 playoff series win in 8 years.

So it is just pure opinion... it is weird to argue with people about who a contender is then.

 

[Seath The Scaleless]

What were your expectations of Tavares this series?

Because we got exactly what I was expecting we would get from him. which I'm fine with.

You were fine with 2 points in 7 games and having very little impact overall? Yeah, he scored the lone PP goal, but he was a huge reason why it failed miserably. Boston funnelled the zone entries to his side and he kept fumbling the puck away

I guess he killed it on faceoffs. Maybe that was the expectation lol

 

[IPS]

So it is just pure opinion... it is weird to argue with people about who a contender is then.

Yeah, literally all of hockey analysis is opinion. Literally all of sports analysis in this regard is opinion. Is this some grand revelation to you or something?

 

[notbias]

Yeah, literally all of hockey analysis is opinion. Literally all of sports analysis in this regard is opinion. Is this some grand revelation to you or something?

Opinions are usually backed by facts to make them stronger... your opinion is just a feeling, there is a difference.

 

[Nineteen67]

I swear to god it's like trying to reason with toddlers.

Vegas was considered a contender because of their past playoff performances, they've been to the cup finals, the conference finals, and have won it all as recent as last year. Toront has none of these things going for them.

How are you so daft that this even needs to be explained.

I think to be a contender you need the components that give a you a chance to win. The Leafs haven’t had those ingredients and they’ve never been close to being a contender.

Outside a few Toronto media members and a few fans no one really thought of this group as legit contender for the Stanley Cup in any of the past 8 seasons.

 

[IPS]

Opinions are usually backed by facts to make them stronger... your opinion is just a feeling, there is a difference.

Yeah, some opinions are better than others by virtue of facts, just like you stated.

IE: The people who had the opinion that Dubas built teams weren't going to see much success in the playoffs.

Served to be a much better and factual opinon than the people who did believe Dubas built teams were going to succeed in the playoffs.

The 1st opinion is the stronger one because it had the facts to back it up: that fact being the team had very little playoff success in Dubas' entire tenure.

I'm kind of sick of stooping to toddler level intelligence to explain this now, do you have anything interesting or not?

 

[Donnie740]

Look I'm FAR from a Dubas fan, but signing a guy that at the time was 27 years old, and a legitimate star center is not a mistake that's something you do every single time, the only reason you and everybody else calls it a mistake is because a once in a lifetime event happened, the world stopp and the cap didn't go up.

You want to blame Dubas for things, I could make a list a mile long.

Trading down to take Dermott instead of keeping the pick and taking Konecy.

Taking Dermott instead of Aho



Getting a shit return for Kadri, I'm not madehe traded Kadri because Kadri kept being an idiot and getting suspended but it was a shit return.

Turning down Weegar for Dermott and Johnsson, yup he turned that down.

There is A LOT you can blame Dubas for, not being able to predict that the world would stop is not on the list.

It was obvious immediately that signing Tavares to that ridiculous contract was a colossal mistake by an inexperienced an incompetent GM.

Leafs already had #1 and #2 centres who were younger and less expensive. There was absolutely ZERO need to give Tavares $11M 7yrs.

Tavares has never won anything in his life. Did Dumbass really think he was bringing in a “winning mindset” to Toronto?


Giving away Kadri for two worthless hacks was another repercussion of this disastrous signing. It looks even worse with Kadri being a key player on a Stanley Cup champion.

Worst of all, it completely skewed Toronto’s salary structure. Suddenly, the bar was raised to be “the highest paid player” on the team, which resulted in RFSs Matthews, Marner and Nylander all fleeing Dumbass in their negotiations.

 

[IPS]

I think to be a contender you need the components that give a you a chance to win. The Leafs haven’t had those ingredients and they’ve never been close to being a contender.

Outside a few Toronto media members and a few fans no one really thought of this group as legit contender for the Stanley Cup in any of the past 8 seasons.

Anyone can get hot and win it all, we've seen it. That's why the NHL is fun.

Still doesn't mean that building a team is all luck. Some GM's just know much better than other GM's what kinds of teams/players succeed in the postseason.