Depth Chart & Organizational Needs

[conFABulator]

I was thinking about our depth chart over the next three to five years (our Matthews window) and trying to look at it in terms of relative strengths and needs.

I broke it down into groupings of

• Top Tier Forwards. Top 96 Scoring with extra consideration for brining additional skills and contributions such as strong D play, grit, puck retrieval, etc. We have five guys that are this or project to be this; Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Knies, and Cowan
• Middle Tier Forwards. These are just what they sound like. Guys that can play up and down in the line up. They could play and score on the first line or possibly end up playing a role on the fourth line. They generally fit on the second and third lines. We have eight of these guys; Tavares (assuming reasonable rate resign, Domi, Jarnkrok McMann, Minten, Grebyenkin, Robertson, and Holmberg.
• Bottom Tier Forwards. These are the (generally) low cost guys that can give you eight minutes a night ES and maybe play a role on top of that such as PK or enforcer. We have more that enough of these guys; Kampf, Dewar, Hirvonen, Tverberg, and Quillan.

Or course guys slide down in the line up. We have five top tier guys that won't all be on the top line, which pushes players down a tier and why we might see Holmberg, Minten, or Jarnkrok on the fourth line. We probably don't resign Jarnkrok or Kampf (maybe move them out before FA) but we seem to pretty solid on F. Particularly if Nylander or Marner becomes a 2C for us.

Defense is another story..

• Top Pairing: These are the the big minute eaters in all situations and you need some offense from these guys for sure. At best we have two of these guys in Rielly and Tanev. You could also argue we have one or none of these guys.
• Middle Pair. We do OK here with McCabe, OEL, Liljegren, Niemela, Danford, and Chadwick.
• Bottom Pair and Depth. We are fine here, most teams probably are. We have Benoit, Haakanpaa, Webber, Kokkonen and who ever slides down from above.

Goalies are voodoo, but with Woll, Stolarz, Hildeby, and Akhtyamov we have enough options for two or three to give us what we need.

So, that's the organizational depth chart as I see it. It shows me we need to convert top end forwards to top tier defense, either by trade or allocating cap space through free agency and hope one of these unicorns hits the market.

This might be a long way of showing why trading Marner to addr as top tier d needs makes sense. It could also show us why resigning Marner and trading a Cowan or Knies makes sense. I much prefer the Marner route. It also shows us why moving a Robertson or Liljegren (and jettisoning Kampf and Jarnkrok) are moves we should be very open to if it helps us address the top D positions.

Click to read more...

 

[Ianturnedbull]

What team would trade for Marner and give the Leafs a top tier defenceman?

 

[conFABulator]

What team would trade for Marner and give the Leafs a top tier defenceman?

That's the issue.

Does Necas and Nikishin for Marner as the basis of a trade work for both teams?

Does Utah move Sergachev after just getting him?

Is there any possible way Dobson can be a target? Harley from Dallas? Clarke from LA?

This is why I made this a depth chart discussion and not a "trade Marner" thread. The need is there but trading him might not be the answer.

If we don't move Marner, can we buy a couple of lottery tickets and hope to hit on s Forsling type? Is this the reason to consider a trade around Robertson for Soderstrom? Jordan Harris?

Can the answer come from within? Should we not see what Berube can do with Liljegren? Niemela?

 

[Fogelhund]

A team has two top pairing D. Ours are currently signed until 2030-31. Of course it's probable that one, or both of their play drops off before 2030, but that's not really a problem for today.

At this point, Marner isn't getting traded... that should be obvious by now. We also have a trade thread, and a Marner thread, this could have easily been added to. It's also a bit strange for a team that couldn't score goals, that the continued theme by many fans is to reduce our offensive threat.

 

[conFABulator]

A team has two top pairing D. Ours are currently signed until 2030-31. Of course it's probable that one, or both of their play drops off before 2030, but that's not really a problem for today.

At this point, Marner isn't getting traded... that should be obvious by now. We also have a trade thread, and a Marner thread, this could have easily been added to. It's also a bit strange for a team that couldn't score goals, that the continued theme by many fans is to reduce our offensive threat.

I worry that even though they are signed until 2031, one or both of them fall out of the top pairing much sooner than later.

I am not convinced Marner still can't be moved, but let's save that for the Marner threads.

I am always surprised that people think offense only comes from forwards. We need more from our D, both in goals and points but also in moving the puck, clearing the zone and pushing the play.

Tanev doesn't do anything his directly, but if he can free up Rielly then that will help the offense.

IMO, it's about leveraging our strength (forwards) to create more balance and a more balanced attack. More offense from the D and bottom six forwards.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

I worry that even though they are signed until 2031, one or both of them fall out of the top pairing much sooner than later.

I am not convinced Marner still can't be moved, but let's save that for the Marner threads.

I am always surprised that people think offense only comes from forwards. We need more from our D, both in goals and points but also in moving the puck, clearing the zone and pushing the play.

Tanev doesn't do anything his directly, but if he can free up Rielly then that will help the offense.

IMO, it's about leveraging our strength (forwards) to create more balance and a more balanced attack. More offense from the D and bottom six forwards.

No one here ever considered the notion that defense could score too.



Come on dude.

How will Treliving pull this off? He would have to trade Rielly and Marner. I am not saying that there's no room in the top 6, Marner's expiring contract, and the cap limitations might be a problem. Ugh... I guess I am saying that those things might be a problem.

 

[conFABulator]

No one here ever considered the notion that defense could score too.



Come on dude.

How will Treliving pull this off? He would have to trade Rielly and Marner. I am not saying that there's no room in the top 6, Marner's expiring contract, and the cap limitations might be a problem. Ugh... I guess I am saying that those things might be a problem.

I didn't say that "no one here" considered that defense can score too. I said I am surprised that some people don't seem to see that at all.

Why are we trading Rielly if our goal is to increase offense from the back end? Again, this is where I hope that Tanev's addition helps Rielly unlock more offense.

I think the only way we add top end D is via trade and I think our chips are Marner, Knies, Cowan, and our 1st round pick(s).

If we can't trade Marner, we could let him walk and spend that cap space on Ekblad. How do we feel about that trade off? It's risky for sure as a strategy.

 

[ToneDog]

Marner, Tavares, Rielly, Kampf, Jarncrap out - Ekblad or Theodore, Rantanen, Koneckny, B Tanev in.

 

[notbias]

Marner, Tavares, Rielly, Kampf, Jarncrap out - Ekblad or Theodore, Rantanen, Koneckny, B Tanev in.

It seems easy to do and realistic, call up Tre.

 

[ACC1224]

Re-unite Ekblad and McDavid in Toronto? That would be nice, probably difficult to pull off though.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

I didn't say that "no one here" considered that defense can score too. I said I am surprised that some people don't seem to see that at all.

Why are we trading Rielly if our goal is to increase offense from the back end? Again, this is where I hope that Tanev's addition helps Rielly unlock more offense.

I think the only way we add top end D is via trade and I think our chips are Marner, Knies, Cowan, and our 1st round pick(s).

If we can't trade Marner, we could let him walk and spend that cap space on Ekblad. How do we feel about that trade off? It's risky for sure as a strategy.

I think you're a Habs fan in disguise. Kidding.

I think there's a lot of fantasy here.

Organizational needs can't just be EA sports wholesale changes.

Let's hear your bottom 6 plans now.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

In regards to Kampf, Dewar, Hirvonen, Tverberg, and Quillan which one is the most effective enforcer?

 

[Fogelhund]

In regards to Kampf, Dewar, Hirvonen, Tverberg, and Quillan which one is the most effective enforcer?

Ronald McDonald

 

[conFABulator]

I think you're a Habs fan in disguise. Kidding.

I think there's a lot of fantasy here.

Organizational needs can't just be EA sports wholesale changes.

Let's hear your bottom 6 plans now.

Habs fan?!?! Never heard that before, even in jest.

I think the bottom six needs to be built around a top nine approach, where we have more balance and expect our big guys to carry more of the load by carrying lines. Assuming we don't move out personnel, but that we do re-sign MM and JT at reasonable new deals...

Knies Matthews Domi
Robertson Nylander Marner
Cowan Tavares McMann
Holmberg Minten Grebenkin

Dewar, Hirvonen, Tverberg

These can't be the actual lines as there will be guys moved in and out, I also don't think we should view it as lines 1 through 4 but more of a balanced and deep forward unit. We are a couple of years away from having this much youth in the lineup, but it should be the organizational goal. There are six or seven 20-goal scorers there (with one being a 60+ goal guy, a 40 goaler and a couple of 30 scorers...lots of PP options and some guys that can PK. We could add a player or two to this cap-wise...or we could throw dollars at a top dman. Ekblad?