Building a Cup Winner | Window Closing or Right on Track?

[conFABulator]

Leaving the trolls and perpetually pessimistic aside, I think we can agree on a few things;

• This current Maple Leafs team is a good one.
• They have not yet proven they can win in the playoffs

Now, what we can’t agree on is a longer list, including but not limited to:

• Can this team win?
• Should they have been more successful so far?

Now, obviously, these two questions cannot be answered with any degree of certainty, and debating our positions on them is why discussion boards like this exist. We all have our opinions of course and some are based on instinct, others on the eye-test of what we are currently watching unfold, and then there is the empirical, historical data as well. I believe the best analysis, discussions, and debate include a healthy mix of all three inputs.

I have taken the two questions above and combined them for my analysis. Can this team win? Or does it have the core (players, leadership, coaching, and management) to be a winner? Given this core, should they have had more post-season success by now?

The answer to this last question is key for me because I believe it informs how patient we need to be (and have been) and what our strategy should be moving forward assuming we don’t win a cup this year. I assume this not because I am sure they won’t win a cup in 2021, but if they do then the conversation obviously changes…it probably also becomes loud, slurred, and unbearable for a few years.

For this post, my approach to the question of should we have been more successful by now starts with data-driven analysis. Here are the parameters of some pretty basic league-wide analysis.

• How far back should we go to consider relevant data points?
• How many FIRST TIME cup winners in this window?
• How do we measure the beginning of a team’s build to a cup?
• What data points would be considered relevant as comparable benchmarks for the Leafs?

Here is what I tracked and reviewed:

• I went back 12 years. This was the Crosby-led Penguins first Stanley Cup. Cup winners immediately before that included Detroit, Anaheim, even Carolina, and the Lecavelier/Richards Lightning team. Those seemed like a different era with different team-building factors in play.
• In the past 12 years, seven different teams have won a cup; Pittsburgh and Chicago (3 times each), LA (2), and Boston, Washington, St. Louis, and Tampa (1).
• In the case of each, I picked a turning-point or pivot season where they started a climb to a cup. This is somewhat informed subjectivity and my guess is if I chose the wrong event for a particular team it probably won’t impact the analysis too much. The seven teams in the study have the following pivot-points:
  • Pittsburgh: The drafting of Crosby was the event. It was followed by Malkin, Fleury, Letang as core pieces.
  • Chicago: The drafting of Toews…this was followed by Kane but was also preceded by Keith and Seabrook.
  • LA: The drafting of Doughty. I am least confident in this turning point of them all. Doughty joined a team that already has a young core that featured Kopitar, Quick, and Brown. If we pick a date earlier than Doughty in the study then it impacts the analysis a lot for LA and a little bit as we aggregate and average across the seven teams.
  • Boston: This one was tricky. I went with Bergeron as a second-round pick but this was a veteran cup winning team that had Chara and Krejci and Lucic and Rechhi as core pieces and Marchand there as well.
  • Washington. This re-build and climb to a cup starts with the Ovie draft. I felt pretty solid on this choice.
  • St. Louis. The weirdest winner of them all to fit into a model. I went with Pietrangelo as the pivot point. The highest pick they have had, the captain of their winning team…but this was a less obvious choice for me.
  • Tampa Bay. This is the Stamkos-era. Their fortunes started to improve once they selected him.
  • NOTE: I consider this Leafs team Pivot-Point to be the drafting of Matthews. We can debate that but we were in full-tank mode before that happened and Marner and Nylander were anywhere near the team until after we drafted AM34.

As for the data points I chose to include, I picked the following:

• How many years from Pivot-Point to Cup-Winner?
• How many years did they NOT qualify for the playoffs between the Pivot and the Cup?
• How many years following the Pivot to their first playoff series win?
• How many playoff series did they win from the Pivot year before their cup year?
• How many head coaches from Pivot to Cup?

Based on all of the parameter-setting and analysis, here is a summary of findings:

• Years to Cup Winner (from Pivot-Point)
  • Average: 8 years
  • Shortest: 4 years (Pittsburgh, LA, and Chicago tied)
  • Longest: 14 years (Washington)
  • Interesting note: the last three cup winners averaged 12.33 years
• How many seasons did they NOT qualify for the playoffs (between Pivot-Point and Cup)
  • Average: 2.3 times
  • Fewest: 1 time (LA, with Doughty as the Pivot-Point)
  • Most: 4 times (Tampa)
  • Interesting note: These numbers are all skewed down as I did not include the lock-out as a season and it seems likely that some of these seven teams would have missed that season also.
• How many years to first play-off round victory (following Pivot-Point)
  • Average: 4 years
  • Fewest: 3 times (Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Tampa tied)
  • Most: 6 times (Boston)
  • Interesting note: Also did not include lock-out season in the math, this would likely have increased some teams and the overall average.
• How many total playoff series won per team (following Pivot-Point and before Cup win)
  • Average: 3.7 series
  • Fewest: 0 series (LA had never won a series before the year they won it all for the first time)
  • Most: 9 series (Tampa)
  • Interesting note: The last three cup winners won an average of 6.33 series before their Cup seasons.
• How many different coaches in the window (including the winning coach)
  • Average: 3.29 coaches
  • Fewest: 2 coaches (Chicago and Pittsburgh)
  • Most: 5 coaches (St. Louis and Washington)

If you made it this far through all of that then I imagine you can see where this is going, or at least where I think it is going. I read this data as; Our window has not closed. Our window is not even closing yet. We are not being too patient. We have reason to stay the course (stick with the core and add to them).

What does everyone else think? Did I handpick data points that supported my hypothesis? Is there some reason the past is not an indicator for the future here? Are there not empirical considerations that override statistical, historical evidence?

Also, final note…wherever I had a judgement call to make on the data set I tried to make the choice that skewed against the Leafs as a comparable…for example, I excluded the lock-out season entirely, though if I had included it that would have made the current Leafs data look even more favourable. I also chose the latest possible Pivot-Points for these seven teams to get the clock running.

I hope you enjoyed it, I look forward to the thoughts and feedback, and input as to what this all means and what else we should be considering.

Click to read more...

 

[Stephen]

Our two franchise pieces are 23 years old. Not even the 80s Oilers were able to win a cup before Gretzky and Messier were... 23 years old.

 

[Leafsfan74]

Leaving the trolls and perpetually pessimistic aside, I think we can agree on a few things;

• This current Maple Leafs team is a good one.
• They have not yet proven they can win in the playoffs

Now, what we can’t agree on is a longer list, including but not limited to:

• Can this team win?
• Should they have been more successful so far?

Now, obviously, these two questions cannot be answered with any degree of certainty, and debating our positions on them is why discussion boards like this exist. We all have our opinions of course and some are based on instinct, others on the eye-test of what we are currently watching unfold, and then there is the empirical, historical data as well. I believe the best analysis, discussions, and debate include a healthy mix of all three inputs.

I have taken the two questions above and combined them for my analysis. Can this team win? Or does it have the core (players, leadership, coaching, and management) to be a winner? Given this core, should they have had more post-season success by now?

The answer to this last question is key for me because I believe it informs how patient we need to be (and have been) and what our strategy should be moving forward assuming we don’t win a cup this year. I assume this not because I am sure they won’t win a cup in 2021, but if they do then the conversation obviously changes…it probably also becomes loud, slurred, and unbearable for a few years.

For this post, my approach to the question of should we have been more successful by now starts with data-driven analysis. Here are the parameters of some pretty basic league-wide analysis.

• How far back should we go to consider relevant data points?
• How many FIRST TIME cup winners in this window?
• How do we measure the beginning of a team’s build to a cup?
• What data points would be considered relevant as comparable benchmarks for the Leafs?

Here is what I tracked and reviewed:

• I went back 12 years. This was the Crosby-led Penguins first Stanley Cup. Cup winners immediately before that included Detroit, Anaheim, even Carolina, and the Lecavelier/Richards Lightning team. Those seemed like a different era with different team-building factors in play.
• In the past 12 years, seven different teams have won a cup; Pittsburgh and Chicago (3 times each), LA (2), and Boston, Washington, St. Louis, and Tampa (1).
• In the case of each, I picked a turning-point or pivot season where they started a climb to a cup. This is somewhat informed subjectivity and my guess is if I chose the wrong event for a particular team it probably won’t impact the analysis too much. The seven teams in the study have the following pivot-points:
  • Pittsburgh: The drafting of Crosby was the event. It was followed by Malkin, Fleury, Letang as core pieces.
  • Chicago: The drafting of Toews…this was followed by Kane but was also preceded by Keith and Seabrook.
  • LA: The drafting of Doughty. I am least confident in this turning point of them all. Doughty joined a team that already has a young core that featured Kopitar, Quick, and Brown. If we pick a date earlier than Doughty in the study then it impacts the analysis a lot for LA and a little bit as we aggregate and average across the seven teams.
  • Boston: This one was tricky. I went with Bergeron as a second-round pick but this was a veteran cup winning team that had Chara and Krejci and Lucic and Rechhi as core pieces and Marchand there as well.
  • Washington. This re-build and climb to a cup starts with the Ovie draft. I felt pretty solid on this choice.
  • St. Louis. The weirdest winner of them all to fit into a model. I went with Pietrangelo as the pivot point. The highest pick they have had, the captain of their winning team…but this was a less obvious choice for me.
  • Tampa Bay. This is the Stamkos-era. Their fortunes started to improve once they selected him.
  • NOTE: I consider this Leafs team Pivot-Point to be the drafting of Matthews. We can debate that but we were in full-tank mode before that happened and Marner and Nylander were anywhere near the team until after we drafted AM34.

As for the data points I chose to include, I picked the following:

• How many years from Pivot-Point to Cup-Winner?
• How many years did they NOT qualify for the playoffs between the Pivot and the Cup?
• How many years following the Pivot to their first playoff series win?
• How many playoff series did they win from the Pivot year before their cup year?
• How many head coaches from Pivot to Cup?

Based on all of the parameter-setting and analysis, here is a summary of findings:

• Years to Cup Winner (from Pivot-Point)
  • Average: 8 years
  • Shortest: 4 years (Pittsburgh, LA, and Chicago tied)
  • Longest: 14 years (Washington)
  • Interesting note: the last three cup winners averaged 12.33 years
• How many seasons did they NOT qualify for the playoffs (between Pivot-Point and Cup)
  • Average: 2.3 times
  • Fewest: 1 time (LA, with Doughty as the Pivot-Point)
  • Most: 4 times (Tampa)
  • Interesting note: These numbers are all skewed down as I did not include the lock-out as a season and it seems likely that some of these seven teams would have missed that season also.
• How many years to first play-off round victory (following Pivot-Point)
  • Average: 4 years
  • Fewest: 3 times (Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Tampa tied)
  • Most: 6 times (Boston)
  • Interesting note: Also did not include lock-out season in the math, this would likely have increased some teams and the overall average.
• How many total playoff series won per team (following Pivot-Point and before Cup win)
  • Average: 3.7 series
  • Fewest: 0 series (LA had never won a series before the year they won it all for the first time)
  • Most: 9 series (Tampa)
  • Interesting note: The last three cup winners won an average of 6.33 series before their Cup seasons.
• How many different coaches in the window (including the winning coach)
  • Average: 3.29 coaches
  • Fewest: 2 coaches (Chicago and Pittsburgh)
  • Most: 5 coaches (St. Louis and Washington)

If you made it this far through all of that then I imagine you can see where this is going, or at least where I think it is going. I read this data as; Our window has not closed. Our window is not even closing yet. We are not being too patient. We have reason to stay the course (stick with the core and add to them).

What does everyone else think? Did I handpick data points that supported my hypothesis? Is there some reason the past is not an indicator for the future here? Are there not empirical considerations that override statistical, historical evidence?

Also, final note…wherever I had a judgement call to make on the data set I tried to make the choice that skewed against the Leafs as a comparable…for example, I excluded the lock-out season entirely, though if I had included it that would have made the current Leafs data look even more favourable. I also chose the latest possible Pivot-Points for these seven teams to get the clock running.

I hope you enjoyed it, I look forward to the thoughts and feedback, and input as to what this all means and what else we should be considering.

A major difference: this Leafs team needs to win sooner as they face perpetual Cap issues due to the massive salaries of their top talent.

Thus, trying to build a team in their "window" is going to be very difficult.

Therefore, barring a Cap increase, this year has provided a unique situation due to Covid that they may not have again.

 

[conFABulator]

A major difference: this Leafs team needs to win sooner as they face perpetual Cap issues due to the massive salaries of their top talent.

Thus, trying to build a team in their "window" is going to be very difficult.

Therefore, barring a Cap increase, this year has provided a unique situation due to Covid that they may not have again.

That's a good point, about the unique nature of the Covid-year.

Having said this, could the uniqueness of this era work in our favour in some ways too? Having our core locked up (literally everyone other than Hyman and Andersen, and I don't consider Andersen part of the core anymore) is a good thing. We know who we have and what they will cost us and don't need to add to the core. Rielly could be the next juggling act made tougher by a flat-cap but he will be UFA in a flat-cap world so that may help us retain reasonably as well. While our plan is to build a team in this window primarily by key players maturing and improving, a lot of other teams have bridged key players (Point, Sergachev, Barzal, etc), have key players hitting FA, or have aging cores...so I am not sure we can say with certainty that the flat cap era works more against us than for us.

 

[Mickey Marner]

We should have a series win by now, but if we go to the conf. finals or further I'll say we're on track.

I'd put us in the second tier of contenders behind Tampa and Colorado.

 

[Leafsfan74]

That's a good point, about the unique nature of the Covid-year.

Having said this, could the uniqueness of this era work in our favour in some ways too? Having our core locked up (literally everyone other than Hyman and Andersen, and I don't consider Andersen part of the core anymore) is a good thing. We know who we have and what they will cost us and don't need to add to the core. Rielly could be the next juggling act made tougher by a flat-cap but he will be UFA in a flat-cap world so that may help us retain reasonably as well. While our plan is to build a team in this window primarily by key players maturing and improving, a lot of other teams have bridged key players (Point, Sergachev, Barzal, etc), have key players hitting FA, or have aging cores...so I am not sure we can say with certainty that the flat cap era works more against us than for us.

Yes, but look at how many players on this team are going to be UFA's after this season. It's impossible to re-sign them all, certainly re-sign them all at the same salary and term. So who are they replaced with to put themselves at the top of the standings again?

Covid is going to impact salaries going forward, particularly in Canada if we can't have our arenas full, so that may assist the team make a good team. Regardless, I see little value in very high priced contracts locked in unless the team has shown post-season success and progress. No playoff wins and a Cap that is maxed out, is not quality ROI, even if the individual talent is high.

 

[zeke]

A major difference: this Leafs team needs to win sooner as they face perpetual Cap issues due to the massive salaries of their top talent.

.

Actually the opposite - right now we're actually in the lull between prospect waves and aren't currently enjoying the benefit of even one impact player being on their ELC contract.

We are already in the worst part of our cap crunch. It'll only get easier as the next wave of prospects starts coming through.

 

[conFABulator]

Yes, but look at how many players on this team are going to be UFA's after this season. It's impossible to re-sign them all, certainly re-sign them all at the same salary and term. So who are they replaced with to put themselves at the top of the standings again?

Covid is going to impact salaries going forward, particularly in Canada if we can't have our arenas full, so that may assist the team make a good team. Regardless, I see little value in very high priced contracts locked in unless the team has shown post-season success and progress. No playoff wins and a Cap that is maxed out, is not quality ROI, even if the individual talent is high.

But which players is that?

Hyman and Andersen. Take what we are currently paying them both and re-allcoate a bit more to Hyman and a bit less to the goalie position and we are good.

Who else is a UFA that we want to retain that would leave for more money on the open market?

 

[Leafsfan74]

We should have a series win by now, but if we go to the conf. finals or further I'll say we're on track.

I'd put us in the second tier of contenders behind Tampa and Colorado.

Agreed. Unfortunately, due to not winning those Game 7s (and 5) in the past few series, we have to see a quick playoff bump without recent prior playoff series success.

I see this team as having to make the Final Four min. for it to have been a year of progress. I would go even further though, and suggest that this team, especially with additions; have the horses to win it all.

The additions that Dubas makes will reinforce or dampen my faith in this prediction. I only see Avs and Vegas as the more balanced teams. I also do think players such as Simmonds, Bogosian and Muzzin are going to become more valuable once the playoffs starts, which is really what this team should be worrying about.

As a bonus, the Leafs working hard to stay on top of the standings and keep Campbells record win streak alive, is a slight, though less demanding precursor to what they will face in the post-season. It's better to have a bit of a battle for something than coasting too easily down the stretch in my opinion. Hopefully there will be some days off for some players as well.

 

[Nylanderthal]

A major difference: this Leafs team needs to win sooner as they face perpetual Cap issues due to the massive salaries of their top talent.

Thus, trying to build a team in their "window" is going to be very difficult.

Therefore, barring a Cap increase, this year has provided a unique situation due to Covid that they may not have again.

Washington paid Ovie 9.5m when the cap was like 56m backstrom made 6.7 as well. Pitt had Sid and geno both making big tickets in comparison to cap as well. don’t just look at aav look at cap%

 

[Leafsfan74]

But which players is that?

Hyman and Andersen. Take what we are currently paying them both and re-allcoate a bit more to Hyman and a bit less to the goalie position and we are good.

Who else is a UFA that we want to retain that would leave for more money on the open market?

The other question is "what do you replace players with that have been a part of this rise to the top of the standings if your team isn't the exact same"? I'm not saying these players are the single reason Leafs have succeeded, but as a unit (they are all team first this year), they all play an important role and their replacement costs would have to be considered.

Bogosian, Simmonds and Galchenyuk almost for certain would earn more. Then Leafs (and the players) have to decide about Thornton and Spezza. Both bring leadership, attitude and character to the lineup. You can't just replace them easily, if you do in fact intend to. So, even though they won't need a raise per se, you still have another year older and decisions.

Think about this team last year and how little faith we had in that group entering this season. If they fail again, what do you cycle in and out to ensure progress if the team doesn't achieve it this year?

It's one of the reason I am of the belief they should trade Freddie if they can and replace with a cheap, veteran backup. Give the team a clean slate and a new outlook for the post-season.

 

[Nylanderthal]

We should have a series win by now, but if we go to the conf. finals or further I'll say we're on track.

I'd put us in the second tier of contenders behind Tampa and Colorado.

Of course I would’ve loved to of seen us win a playoff series so far, but out of the two vs Boston and the one vs Washington which one should we have won? They were decided younger underdogs facing cup contenders out of the gate.
That excuse ends this season though as it’s apparent that all the key contributors can aand will be expected to elevate their play when the time comes this post season.

 

[conFABulator]

We should have a series win by now, but if we go to the conf. finals or further I'll say we're on track.

I'd put us in the second tier of contenders behind Tampa and Colorado.

I would agree that we are behind those two teams and that we should have won a series by now... having said that the Bruins and Capitals are not opponents "we should have beat"

 

[Leafsfan74]

Washington paid Ovie 9.5m when the cap was like 56m backstrom made 6.7 as well. Pitt had Sid and geno both making big tickets in comparison to cap as well. don’t just look at aav look at cap%

The Cap isn't moving though, we won't have any more space moving forward but must still continue to fill in and compete for top NHL talent throughout the depth of this lineup. Other teams signed their players but had the luxury of increased caps over time, which allowed them to accrue more talent.

It's tough to build Cup successful teams with cheap talent, though, it is necessary to some degree without question. Some of the complimentary players that the Caps and TB have for instance, are hard driving players. Not just goal scoring flashy "hit or miss any night" players. We don't need to dissect their lineup, we know the names and the differences.

 

[Stephen]

A major difference: this Leafs team needs to win sooner as they face perpetual Cap issues due to the massive salaries of their top talent.

Thus, trying to build a team in their "window" is going to be very difficult.

Therefore, barring a Cap increase, this year has provided a unique situation due to Covid that they may not have again.

Every single contending NHL team is in a perpetual cap crisis. You think Vegas isn’t capped out, or Tampa isn’t facing their cap reckoning this summer or Colorado doesn’t have a huge headache with Makar and Landeskog hitting RFA and UFA status? Or Boston’s core doesn’t look a little old? Or the Islanders are locked into a series of multi year contracts for middle aged players? Even up and coming teams like Florida have a Bobrovsky and Carolina has Dougie Hamilton hitting free agency. There isn’t one good team out there that isn’t looking at cap management headaches.

 

[Nylanderthal]

The Cap isn't moving though, we won't have any more space moving forward but must still continue to fill in and compete for top NHL talent throughout the depth of this lineup. Other teams signed their players but had the luxury of increased caps over time, which allowed them to accrue more talent.

It's tough to build Cup successful teams with cheap talent, though, it is necessary to some degree without question.

I would argue that the flat cap squeezes the middle and lower end ufas which fits perfectly into our needs. Pretty much everyone is up against the cap, the difference is the Leafs are capped out on the top end of the roster and a lot of other teams are capped out on bottom 6/middle roster.

 

[Leafsfan74]

Every single contending NHL team is in a perpetual cap crisis. You think Vegas isn’t capped out, or Tampa isn’t facing their cap reckoning this summer or Colorado doesn’t have a huge headache with Makar and Landeskog hitting RFA and UFA status? Or Boston’s core doesn’t look a little old? Or the Islanders are locked into a series of multi year contracts for middle aged players? Even up and coming teams like Florida have a Bobrovsky and Carolina has Dougie Hamilton hitting free agency. There isn’t one good team out there that isn’t looking at cap management headaches.

Yes, but look at Vegas, Boston or TB prior success. The players have already paid for themselves in actual team success. Vegas made it to a Cup in their first year, we haven't even been to a final in 53.

Avs have had some playoff success and they have only improved each year. We have paid at the very top of the spectrum (some might say, needlessly overpaid during RFA, but this is another discussion), for potential. We don't even know if this team makes the playoffs throughout a full year last season, and we know how they stacked up against Columbus.

It's clear some of that potential has continued to grow, but, we still have to accept we have been Cap strapped, with nary a playoff round to show for it. This is the year that we absolutely need to show that there is an intrinsic desire to win within the core of this team. Surround them with gamers for the playoffs.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Of course I would’ve loved to of seen us win a playoff series so far, but out of the two vs Boston and the one vs Washington which one should we have won? They were decided younger underdogs facing cup contenders out of the gate.
That excuse ends this season though as it’s apparent that all the key contributors can aand will be expected to elevate their play when the time comes this post season.

I would agree that we are behind those two teams and that we should have won a series by now... having said that the Bruins and Capitals are not opponents "we should have beat"

We should have beat Columbus.

 

[Nylanderthal]

We should have beat Columbus.

Pitts should’ve beat Montreal, Nashville should’ve beat Arizona, Edmonton should’ve beat Chicago.... last year was a complete crapshoot especially in the play in round. They lost to a team that the year before swept the cup favourite (and next years winner) playing the same way they played our young guys who were playing in a very very unfamiliar set of circumstances.
I’m willing to give them a pass, but like many others that’s all in the past now, this team will be expected to win

 

[conFABulator]

Yes, but look at Vegas, Boston or TB prior success. The players have already paid for themselves in actual team success. Vegas made it to a Cup in their first year, we haven't even been to a final in 53.

Avs have had some playoff success and they have only improved each year. We have paid at the very top of the spectrum (some might say, needlessly overpaid during RFA, but this is another discussion), for potential. We don't even know if this team makes the playoffs throughout a full year last season, and we know how they stacked up against Columbus.

It's clear some of that potential has continued to grow, but, we still have to accept we have been Cap strapped, with nary a playoff round to show for it. This is the year that we absolutely need to show that there is an intrinsic desire to win within the core of this team. Surround them with gamers for the playoffs.

Yes, we are absolutely paying for potential. That is the gamble but hasn't played out yet. If we had taken the lower-cost, bridge contract approach on our young guys...we could arguably be in a worse spot now. Contracts coming up for Marner, Matthews, and Nylander sooner when they have more leverage through their bodies of work and they are closer to UFA. We might also have more contracts on the books and less money to sign them depending on how we used whatever savings we got from the bridge approach.

Our approach is a gamble, a gamble that this core is the core that grows and delivers success...no doubt about it.

I like the gamble and feel good about the results thus far.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Every single contending NHL team is in a perpetual cap crisis. You think Vegas isn’t capped out, or Tampa isn’t facing their cap reckoning this summer or Colorado doesn’t have a huge headache with Makar and Landeskog hitting RFA and UFA status? Or Boston’s core doesn’t look a little old? Or the Islanders are locked into a series of multi year contracts for middle aged players? Even up and coming teams like Florida have a Bobrovsky and Carolina has Dougie Hamilton hitting free agency. There isn’t one good team out there that isn’t looking at cap management headaches.

Great post!

Yes, but look at Vegas, Boston or TB prior success. The players have already paid for themselves in actual team success. Vegas made it to a Cup in their first year, we haven't even been to a final in 53.

Avs have had some playoff success and they have only improved each year. We have paid at the very top of the spectrum (some might say, needlessly overpaid during RFA, but this is another discussion), for potential. We don't even know if this team makes the playoffs throughout a full year last season, and we know how they stacked up against Columbus.

It's clear some of that potential has continued to grow, but, we still have to accept we have been Cap strapped, with nary a playoff round to show for it. This is the year that we absolutely need to show that there is an intrinsic desire to win within the core of this team. Surround them with gamers for the playoffs.

We've yet to have playoff success, that's true. On the other hand, I think it's hard (if not impossible) to argue that we don't have a fantastic team that is a top contender. And like the above post pointed out, all contenders have cap issues.

It's all good man, sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[conFABulator]

Bogosian, Simmonds and Galchenyuk almost for certain would earn more. Then Leafs (and the players) have to decide about Thornton and Spezza.

Of course we won't know until it happens, but I am no it sure I agree with that list...

I think Simmonds will come in for less money. He is a year older and couldn't prove that he could stay healthy. His love affair with Toronto now that he has played here should have him at the same or lower than his current contract.

Why does Bogo get a raise? Yes, he has been exactly as advertised and what we need. Who gives him a raise and why does he move on? How much if a raise could it be?

Galchenyuk? Who knows? Seems like he might take the same money to get a chance to stay in an organization that gave him a shot at redemption and offers him a shot in the best top 6 in the NHL. It seems he needs a full, positive season before he starts asking for more money.

Spezza? See the last two years.

Thornton? He already chose to be here for league minimum and now he is a year older and less effective.

If we re-sign all of these guys and lose one to the expansion draft we already don't have room for Sandin, Liljegren, Robertson, Hallander, Anderson and whatever new guys we want to sign to league minimum next UFA season.

 

[Welsh Maple Leaf]

Right on track

 

[Gary Nylund]

Of course we won't know until it happens, but I am no it sure I agree with that list...

I think Simmonds will come in for less money. He is a year older and couldn't prove that he could stay healthy. His love affair with Toronto now that he has played here should have him at the same or lower than his current contract.

Why does Bogo get a raise? Yes, he has been exactly as advertised and what we need. Who gives him a raise and why does he move on? How much if a raise could it be?

Galchenyuk? Who knows? Seems like he might take the same money to get a chance to stay in an organization that gave him a shot at redemption and offers him a shot in the best top 6 in the NHL. It seems he needs a full, positive season before he starts asking for more money.

Spezza? See the last two years.

Thornton? He already chose to be here for league minimum and now he is a year older and less effective.

If we re-sign all of these guys and lose one to the expansion draft we already don't have room for Sandin, Liljegren, Robertson, Hallander, Anderson and whatever new guys we want to sign to league minimum next UFA season.

Agree with all this.

BTW this thread title is strange, in what world would a team stacked with young talent and a nice looking, talented pool of prospects be worried about it's window closing?

 

[conFABulator]

Agree with all this.

BTW this thread title is strange, in what world would a team stacked with young talent and a nice looking, talented pool of prospects be worried about it's window closing?

Fair point. I don't feel it closing at all...the title was in response to the many threads, posts, and posters I read on here that seem to think we have missed, or are about to miss our chance.