In what way is your response directed towards what I said? What can am I kicking? Your comment dealt with two contracts. I commented on why I believe one cannot determine now whether they are good or not. Campbell's contract wasn't a part of the original discussion, why are you introducing it now?
Do you believe in Dubas?
- Thread starter PromisedLand
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
In what way is your response directed towards what I said? What can am I kicking? Your comment dealt with two contracts. I commented on why I believe one cannot determine now whether they are good or not. Campbell's contract wasn't a part of the original discussion, why are you introducing it now?
At this point I'd agree the Ritchie contract doesn't look good. But, I am not going to say it is a garbage deal because we are but 17 games in. Nylander's deal was considered a horror by many, now it seems like a steal. I am not suggesting Ritchie's chances are as good as Nylander's were in changing minds, but I'd suggest we've not seen the best of Ritchie to date and that what is considered a terrible contract today might not look as bad as it does should his level of play improve, something I think can happen.
Racer88
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2020
- 13,186
- 13,343
I get what he was thinking on both, not saying I agree necessarily mind you, but I can see his POV on them.
Ritchie: He was (still is) realtively young at 25, and he does play a sand paper game, as well when healthy/motivated can flirt with 20 goals. Dubas thought he was getting a decent secondary player on the cheap, someone who could come in and help balance out the top 6 or 9 (depending on how you look at it). The problem is, his skating is so god awful, that he just doesn't fit into Keefes' uptempo and puck possession team. Ritchie is more suited for a structured/dump/chase team, he's getting badly exposed here.
Mrzakek: Dubas was clearly looking to go with a platoon goalie system, given Campells short record and injury concerns, it made perfect sense he'd seek out a goalie that can come in and play 35-45 games to act as an insurance market in goal. Let's face it, when healthy he is a decent goalie, the problem is he took on a nasty groin year which has hampered plans gong forward, I can't fault Dubas for that. I think when he's back healthy, the plan still is the same, with both guys splitting time down the middle in net, I expect that to occur all the way into the postseason IMO.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
Seems like setting the bar too low to me. I guess it depends on how it happens - if we play a great team in round two and play our hearts out while losing in the end, sure you could call that progress. On the other hand, winning the cup should be the goal and that's what we should be shooting at. This post made me look up the current betting odds. IIRC we were the 4th betting favourite when the season started, dropped back to 7th at one point and are now back to 5th. COL is the #1 favourite at +700 while we're at +1100, seems like we're right in the mix (though it's still unfortunate we're in such a tough division).
I really hope that's not the plan. I'll say it again, my first priority in the summer would have been to extend Campbell and so far, not doing so looks like it's Dubas' biggest mistake since the Marner contract.
I agree. It's easy to crap all over the Mrazek deal but it's too easy to do that now that he's injured. It looked like a reasonable deal at the time, my only complaint is that the Campbell extension should have been done at the same time, if not before.
My biggest problem with the Mrazek deal was that it was paying a premium for an insurance policy and being soooo risk averse. Now, you can argue that the goalie market was insane this off-season, and that maybe these guys weren't interested in signing here, but with our cap situation and the promise Campbell had showed IMO the play was to go with a cheaper platoon guy like Reimer or Raanta. Anoint Campbell the 50+ game starter with a + level solid veteran back up rather than set up a 1A/1B battle.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
Yeah you're probably right. At the time Mrazek was signed I was thinking that there were issues with Campbell's durability (and I still don't know what the reason was behind all that load management going on with him last season) and that explained why we needed Mrazek. Now however, it seems like there was no reason to think Campbell couldn't carry a bigger load so it's all a bit confusing to me. But yeah, I was high on Campbell by the time the playoffs started and completely sold on him after the playoffs which is why I said he was my #1 priority in the off-season and not taking care of that was an obvious mistake.
Anyhow, I really hope Dubas has realized his mistake and is working hard to get this done as Campbell's value is going up with every game and the closer we get to the end of the season, the more tempting it is for Jack to gamble that he will stay healthy and get a huge payoff in the summer. The dream is that Jack is extended, Mrazek comes back and plays lights out so that we are able to trade him and get that cheaper platton guy you mentioned. If we can't get rid of him though, it's really hard to see how we can keep all our best players and sign Campbell considering our young Dmen will need raises as well.
Ya honestly think you and I have a similar expectation, and maybe I just didn't explain myself well enough.
I would consider anything less than getting out of the first round a complete failure. Grounds to immediately change in course, and make a core move. Absolutely no excuses, no explanation required. Failure through and through. Time to move on.
Anything beyond the 1st round would be grounds for an evaluation, with me leaning towards keeping the core in tact. That is without knowing the exact details of how they fell short.
Getting out of the first round has been this teams biggest hurdle. Just like the Canucks getting past the Hawks in 2011 when Alex Burrows "slayed the dragon". That single goal allowed that core group to stay together for another 3-4 years, and together they accomplished some special things. Just listen to Bieksa talk about that goal and what that meant to that group, and how massive that goal was in keeping that team together. Realistically that team should have won a cup in that time. They had it all.
That said, say they get through round 1, come out completely gutless and lose 4 straight to a far superior team in R2, I think you'd still have to look at potentially making a core move. The evaluation should not be muddied or masked by a strong first round.
As I said from the get go, as long as there is progress. Obviously that is going to be open to debate at end of season, and I don't even know at this point exactly what "progress" may look like. But I do know 1 thing, there is absolutely no circumstance where I would consider a first round loss a success or grounds to continue on the path ahead. Again, if they get out of the first round and I'll adjust my expectations thereafter, but as of now we just need the ball to move forward.
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 22,109
- 6,699
while things can change saying lets wait until next season is over before we can evaluate Ritchie/Mzarak is kicking the can down the road to try to deflect any criticism away from the person who signed them and the reason i brought up Campbells contract is the money to give him a raise has to come from somewhere and it's hard to imagine the team can pay soup and keep another pricey goalie so chances are Mzarek won't season here to try to earn his deal unless we can't move him
what happens in a scenario where Florida wins the division, and Toronto faces off against a healthy Tampa (with Kucherov back in the lineup) in round 1? Is losing to Tampa really considered a failure?
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,410
- 29,552
Fair enough. But I would suggest that if losing to tampa is a failure, then losing to any other team in any other round would also be a complete failure, would it not?
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,410
- 29,552
It really doesn't matter who we play at this point.. this team needs to win a round, maybe a couple this year, or it's a complete failure.
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 78,350
- 45,603
100%. Not getting out of the first round this year is unacceptable.
I honestly wouldn't consider either one of those deals awful at this point, maybe not even ever.
It is impossible for any GM to be 100% on their transaction success rate. As people on here alluded to already, Mrazek was signed to play anywhere from 35-45 games. Yes he came with a lengthy injury history, but so did Kase, so do a lot of players. Petr will play meaningful minutes for us. He looked outstanding in pre-season, and I expect that to continue when back to full heath. At that point, we should have one of the best duo's in the game.
Ritchie was overpaid. I think Dubas should have known better personally, I've gone into length before why I think this, but in all reality that was the price to acquire a young, big, strong winger with Good hands in the UFA market. There has been a strong trend upward for big bodies ever since the STL cup win, unfortunately that meant overpaying him. He's actually playing exactly how I expected from everything I had read on him prior to signing, and in all honesty he hasn't been as bad as this market makes him out to be. He's not a first line player, never will be. He will be fine.
but even if you disagree with my assessments of the 2 players, these are both easily moveable contracts. I don't consider any moveable contracts bad ones.
It is impossible for a GM to be 100% on their transaction success rate. As long as you can mitigate the failures by moving the deals all is well. No harm no foul.
For example, Hyman deal looks like a no brainer as of now. Which should shock no one. He is a great player. It was never going to look bad in years 1-3 likely. Lets see how moveable Zach's contract is in years 4 through 7 with his NMC should he regress.
Look at the tire fire that is the Canucks. OEL 726AAV for another 6 years, Dickonson 1.5AAV for 4years, Poolman 2.5AAV for 4 more years. Unmovable deals.
We have little to no unmovable assets. I think the only one I could think of would be JT. But he is still highly effective and our captain. It would be extremely unlikely that we'd want to part ways with him regardless
Like I said, anything short of getting out of the first round is a complete failure. It will be time to move on.
I was fine with running it back with this group this year. Almost in a final kick at the can type of scenario. I respect Kyle for believing in these core 4 players, when the pressure/appetite for change was higher than it's ever been in this market. But no matter the opponent, this group needs to win a round this year.
We had back to back years with ideal 1st round matchups, and it was not enough. They had their chances to do the damage when it was easy. Shit or get off the potty time now.
I still believe in these players. I have confidence they can get it done. I have already come to terms with he fact that no matter where we finish in the standings, we will likely face either TB, FLA, BOS, or Metropolitan #1 seed in the first round. So it will not be easy to get out of the first round no matter what. This group will need to earn it. I am OK with that, and so should the players. If they are as good as they think they are, this should not be a problem. If the belief in the room is as strong as they say it is in their interviews, this should not be a problem.
There will be zero excuses for 1st round failures going forward. If you are getting "goalied", play impenetrable defense and win 1-0. If you have a star player go down with a series/season ending injury, next man in needs to step up. The remaining star players need to elevate their games. Absolutely no room for excuses at this point. Get out of R1.
I am also very confident that this is the narrative that Keefe and the players have as well.
Dubas' greatest accomplishment thus far is his underrated and underappreciated overhauling of our defense. We were a bottom feeder defensively for over a decade, almost 2 decades really. Last year was the first time in ~15 years where we had a top 5 defense, and we are tracking to do the same this year as well. Brodie, Muzzin, Holl, and Sandin are all his doing. On any given night 3 of those players are in the lineup. Not to mention the defensive minded forwards in Kerf, Kase, Kampf as well as our lights out tendy in Soup.
Goals Against/game played (T-5)
PK % (T-3)
Pretty impressive shit. Especially when you consider the 7 spot that Pitt put up on us early on into the season.
What is ironic is that the narrative has always been that the 4 players making 40 Million has been holding this team back from making moves to improve our roster, yet the improvements on D and in net were made largely after those deals were signed...
Goals Against/game played (T-5)
PK % (T-3)
Pretty impressive shit. Especially when you consider the 7 spot that Pitt put up on us early on into the season.
What is ironic is that the narrative has always been that the 4 players making 40 Million has been holding this team back from making moves to improve our roster, yet the improvements on D and in net were made largely after those deals were signed...
When do you evaluate a player's contract? When is it fair to do so? After 17 games, 7, after the playoffs (which many deem to be the only thing that matters for this team)? What is a 15 goal, 26 point season worth in free agency after a 56 game season? Can a player shift his value if his play improves, especially during the playoffs? How do you evaluate an injured player after only two games? One that was signed to be a tandem goaltender, not a clear starter? Do you wait to see if his form improves the team after the injury heals? Can the players/contracts be moved? I'm not suggesting that either is a star, or has lived up to expectations. I have only suggested that to call either contract a bad contract after only 17 games is premature. I struggle to understand how one can say with certainty otherwise.
Apex Predator
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 4,497
- 4,799
Maybe it’s just the hot streak but the way they have been playing lately gives me some hope that Dubas is starting to figure it out. If the Leafs miss the playoffs or get knocked out in the first round I’m not against giving Dubas a chance to correct it but he has to move a core 4 piece.
I said it the other day on here, Dubas is a student of the game. He's been in the game at every level. He's had success at every level. His "vision" isn't static. He understands that sustained success is about adapting.
His belief in the core-4 is being mischaracterized as stubborn and unmalleable. But if you look deeply at the 4 opening day rosters he has assembled since he's been GM, it's been anything but static.
I am not spewing this shit only on days where they are riding 4-5 game heaters. I will say this stuff after the same 4-5 game losing streak. If you read this forum often enough, you'd know this to be true.
In Kyle's mind, moving one of the core 4 was not the right move after last year. A very controversial decision. One that I can get behind, but also see the other side of the argument as well. At this very second it looks to be the right call. That could literally change in a week. The highs are high and the lows are low in this market.
But don't kid yourself, Kyle is not puffing his chest out right now saying I told you so. He's seen first hand, multiple times, how his wolves of the meaningless games quickly become sheep overnight when it matters the most.
I truly don't believe he has given this core an unlimited amount of leash. He is constantly looking at ways to improve the outcome. If that involves moving a core piece, it will get done IMO.
Last edited:
Buds17
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2015
- 8,590
- 3,623
Losing in a later round isn't at all the same as losing in the first round. Losing in the second round or later at this point would be a disappointment (from the fan POV) for me rather than a failure. I also wouldn't view each of the past five series losses in the same way (different opponents, different regular season placement, sometimes squandering a series lead, etc.). Every season that goes by without a Cup win could technically be labelled as a failure. I'd hope that isn't an honest expectation though as I don't necessarily believe 31 teams failed in any given season.
2 decades? Try 4, with the lone exception of the conference final Burns seasons.
He's improved the line-up every year.. issue has been star players coming to play. I think this year especially though we'll be in the market for a secondary scoring winger. It seems to be the only hole on this Team... left winger that can bury. It is still early though.. I'd like to give Mikheyev a chance at that spot before making any drastic moves. I personally think Mikheyev would flourish on a line with Kampf/Kase.
kevsh
Registered User
- Nov 28, 2018
- 3,900
- 5,539
Ritchie didn't make sense and still doesn't. And wait, doesn't have a reputation that he "disappears" come playoff time? So imagine him being less impactful than he is now, right when the team needs his (advertised) type of game the most.
Bunting has been playing on the fourth line so, not great.
Kase starting to find his game so, so far, a big win there.
Mrazek is out, so not really fair to even begin to judge that signing until he's put in at least a half dozen starts or more, which may not happen for awhile.
Kampf has been as advertised. Any offense he creates is a bonus.
Still very early to give anything close to final judgement for his off-season moves - the post-season is the only thing that counts this year - but so far, nothing I've seen from this team suggests they're any better positioned for a run than they were last year.
Bunting has been playing on the fourth line so, not great.
Kase starting to find his game so, so far, a big win there.
Mrazek is out, so not really fair to even begin to judge that signing until he's put in at least a half dozen starts or more, which may not happen for awhile.
Kampf has been as advertised. Any offense he creates is a bonus.
Still very early to give anything close to final judgement for his off-season moves - the post-season is the only thing that counts this year - but so far, nothing I've seen from this team suggests they're any better positioned for a run than they were last year.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,109
- 62,030
Kind of weird how Mrazek and Ritchie were two of the more expensive players acquired through free agency and they’ve been duds while the other Moneyball ish pick ups have fit in a lot better. I think we might still need Mrazek for a stretch here and there as the season wears on - 82 games is a marathon.
I’m not a knuckle dragger but recognize that a Ritchie type is an ingredient we need more of. But Ritchie himself is falling on his face and blowing a pretty good opportunity to get his career on track and to the next level. Even if he just gave us David Kampf energy levels and nothing else he would be better. Guess he’s never really been a gamer in his career and this is just another example of it.
I’m not a knuckle dragger but recognize that a Ritchie type is an ingredient we need more of. But Ritchie himself is falling on his face and blowing a pretty good opportunity to get his career on track and to the next level. Even if he just gave us David Kampf energy levels and nothing else he would be better. Guess he’s never really been a gamer in his career and this is just another example of it.
- Status
