Fire Shanahan/Dubas (Yay or Nay)

[sparxx87]

Martin was a mid-season healthy scratch by Babcock while Lou was still GM. It's a bit funny how it get misremembered that Dubas' drove him out of town.

Almost as funny as the ‘Leaf fans’ who seem more interested in the success and image of the general manager than what’s actually good for the franchise.

 

[7even]

Dubas I can understand because he's the actual GM, but Shanahan, what why, he's the president, what are you firing him for, not firing the GM? That feels redundant.

This organization was a f***ing trash heap and had been for decades until he came in, richest Micky Mouse venture in pro sports, and now it's one of if not the best run in the league. Today it's just the team that embarrasses me, not the whole organization.

 

[sparxx87]

Dubas I can understand because he's the actual GM, but Shanahan, what why, he's the president, what are you firing him for, not firing the GM? That feels redundant.

This organization was a f***ing trash heap and had been for decades until he came in, richest Micky Mouse venture in pro sports, and now it's one of if not the best run in the league. Today it's just the team that embarrasses me, not the whole organization.

For me it’s that Shanahan hired an unqualified individual with no high level experience to run a franchise in one of the most important times in its long history.

This was always going to crash and burn under Dubas, and it all happened under Shanahan as a result of his decisions.

 

[4thline]

This was always going to crash and burn under Dubas, and it all happened under Shanahan as a result of his decisions.

TBH it looks like that might need to be amended to "this was always going to crash and burn" if Matthews/Marner don't deliver in the playoffs

 

[socko]

That and I don't think any of the best GMs would really want to answer to a hack like Shanahan. Why should they? He's extra middle management that is unnecessary. Don't hire someone else, eliminate the position.

 

[sparxx87]

TBH it looks like that might need to be amended to "this was always going to crash and burn" if Matthews/Marner don't deliver in the playoffs

Fair. But I also think a better structure around them might give them better opportunity for success.

This was always the danger in making kids top 7 salaries and building so top heavy with such a small body of work.

Contrast with someone like Matt Barzal whose now elevated in 3 straight playoffs but only signed a $7M bridge last year. He still has a lot to prove if he wants top dollar. Matthews and Marner? Not so much.

 

[4thline]

Fair. But I also think a better structure around them might give them better opportunity for success.

This was always the danger in making kids top 7 salaries with such a small body of work.

Contrast with someone like Matt Barzal whose now elevated in 3 straight playoffs but only signed a $7M bridge last year. He still has a lot to prove if he wants top dollar. Matthews and Marner? Not so much.

Thought experiment, let's fix their contracts. Matthews same money but more term (fits between Eichel and McD), Marner same term but less money 9.5x6 (based on the deal Kane signed before the cup). 1.4 million dollars doesn't make us better enough to overcome 1 goal combined + loss of a 1 C quality captain. Even if it was a cheaper 2C ( say 7m on Hayes) that we're missing due to injury, an extra 5.4m isn't as much of an impact as the difference between those two producing at regular levels and them ghosting the series.

 

[sparxx87]

Thought experiment, let's fix their contracts. Matthews same money but more term (fits between Eichel and McD), Marner same term but less money 9.5x6 (based on the deal Kane signed before the cup). 1.4 million dollars doesn't make us better enough to overcome 1 goal combined + loss of a 1 C quality captain. Even if it was a cheaper 2C ( say 7m on Hayes) that we're missing due to injury, an extra 5.4m isn't as much of an impact as the difference between those two producing at regular levels and them ghosting the series.

I guess with a $6m 2C and $5 + 3.5 from Kerfoot I would have targeted someone like JG Pageau for the 3rd line + roughly $3m to turn Simmonds into a $4m free agent for the top 6?

 

[sparxx87]

@4thline

I have a number of ideas as to how they could better spend $14.5M from Tavares and Kerfoot but I’m on mobile and it keeps refreshing and deleting my work!!

 

[Trapper]

I guess with $5.4 + 3.5 from Kerfoot I would have targeted someone like JG Pageau for the 3rd line + roughly $3m to turn Simmonds into a $4m free agent for the top 6?

You need a solid top 9 to win the Cup IMO.
That’s 4 rounds where injuries happen and depth is needed.
Assuming we lose Kerfoot to expansion and strip this thing bare bones, you are looking at:

LW Matthews (11.64) Marner (10.903)
LW Tavares (11) Nylander (6.962)
LW C RW
LW C RW

Rielly (5) Brodie (5)
Muzzin (5.625) Holl (2)

Campbell (1.65)

60 million

Now teams like Boston,NY,Tampa,Colorado can all run with a 3rd line around 10 million.
Tampa has Tyler Johnson on the 4th right now. It’s very tough to compete. Plus Muzzin gets injured, someone isn’t scoring and you are done.

Make a deal to turn Marner into a 5 mil Konecny, Debrinkat, etc.
Grab a young top 4 D in the deal and a 1st for the future.
Then you can bolster that 3rd line with the salaried players like Kadri/Kapanen were making.
Balance.

 

[socko]

When Patrick Kane signed his contract he was a 2 time Stanley Cup champion, 1 time Conn Smythe winner, and had 37 goals and 91 points in 93 playoff games.

When Marner signed his obscene contact he had 5 goals and 17 points in 20 playoff games. Never making it out of the first round.

He brings that up as a comparable, I spit out my milk and have to excuse myself for a change of clothes.

 

[4thline]

I guess with a $6m 2C and $5 + 3.5 from Kerfoot I would have targeted someone like JG Pageau for the 3rd line + roughly $3m to turn Simmonds into a $4m free agent for the top 6?

Kerfoot had what, 6 points in series- definitely outplayed his contract. And that 6m 2C is out with a freak head injury, so the net gain is Pageau over Kerfoot and a 4m winger. Might have gotten us over the hump, but still not as much of a difference as our stores delivering star performances.

 

[rumman]

Dubas I can understand because he's the actual GM, but Shanahan, what why, he's the president, what are you firing him for, not firing the GM? That feels redundant.

This organization was a f***ing trash heap and had been for decades until he came in, richest Micky Mouse venture in pro sports, and now it's one of if not the best run in the league. Today it's just the team that embarrasses me, not the whole organization.

Shanahan hired Dubas.......Dubas has ran the bus off multiple cliffs, ergo firing both President and GM more than warranted.

 

[4thline]

When Patrick Kane signed his contract he was a 2 time Stanley Cup champion, 1 time Conn Smythe winner, and had 37 goals and 91 points in 93 playoff games.

When Marner signed his obscene contact he had 5 goals and 17 points in 20 games. Never making it out of the first round.

He brings that up as a comparable, I spit out my milk and have to excuse myself for a change of clothes.

When Kane signed his 1st non ELC contract he had won none of those things. That 1st non ELC contract translates to ~9.5x5 under todays cap.

 

[sparxx87]

Kerfoot had what, 6 points in series- definitely outplayed his contract. And that 6m 2C is out with a freak head injury, so the net gain is Pageau over Kerfoot and a 4m winger. Might have gotten us over the hump, but still not as much of a difference as our stores delivering star performances.

For sure. Kerfoot’s production wasn’t the issue, it’s that he’s a below average centreman in many facets of the game.. He was on the wrong end of so many won-battles by the Habs.

Losing your 2c and one of your top 4 forwards was always tough... but if that 2c made 6-7m there was more money to support the top 3.

You’re not wrong that this ultimately falls on Matthews and Marner, I’m just saying they could have overcome without Tavares with better structure.

 

[sparxx87]

You need a solid top 9 to win the Cup IMO.
That’s 4 rounds where injuries happen and depth is needed.
Assuming we lose Kerfoot to expansion and strip this thing bare bones, you are looking at:

LW Matthews (11.64) Marner (10.903)
LW Tavares (11) Nylander (6.962)
LW C RW
LW C RW

Rielly (5) Brodie (5)
Muzzin (5.625) Holl (2)

Campbell (1.65)

60 million

Now teams like Boston,NY,Tampa,Colorado can all run with a 3rd line around 10 million.
Tampa has Tyler Johnson on the 4th right now. It’s very tough to compete. Plus Muzzin gets injured, someone isn’t scoring and you are done.

Make a deal to turn Marner into a 5 mil Konecny, Debrinkat, etc.
Grab a young top 4 D in the deal and a 1st for the future.
Then you can bolster that 3rd line with the salaried players like Kadri/Kapanen were making.
Balance.

I agree. Signing all 3 RFA’s was going to make 6 other very good forwards hard to afford.. He needed to save as much as he could on Marner in particular. Nylander is fair and Matthews just lacked term. Ideally a little lower but I was fine with $11.5. Not gonna be mad at 100k.

But the $11M wrench is what really killed it.

 

[Trapper]

I agree. Signing all 3 RFA’s was going to make 6 other very good forwards hard to afford.. He needed to save as much as he could on Marner in particular. Nylander is fair and Matthews just lacked term. Ideally a little lower but I was fine with $11.5. Not gonna be mad at 100k.

But the $11M wrench is what really killed it.

Goals are at a premium in the playoffs.
Marner doesn’t score.
A different winger for Matthews (at cheaper) that can drive the net and score his own goals also helps Matthews. Harder in the forecheck changing the dynamic.

 

[socko]

When Kane signed his 1st non ELC contract he had won none of those things. That 1st non ELC contract translates to ~9.5x5 under todays cap.

So he had 1 Stanely Cup and his numbers were even better. And I don't know about your inflation numbers, seems a tad high.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Pros of the playoffs:

- Most of the defense (Some critically dumb plays that cost us the round however. Looking at you Dermot and Bogo)
- The vet's were decent-amazing, that being Simmonds, Spezza, Thornton, Bogo. Though Thornton was heavily overused on the PP and that cost us
- Campbell is our new starter and there's no question about it. He owned the crease though admittedly made a couple of oooff plays.
- Nylander turned into an all-star forward in the PO's. He squashed his critics and took his game to a new level.

Cons:

- Matthews and Marner didn't show up. The hinges to the doors of their locker rooms did more.
- Got out muscled, plain and simple. Most of our forward core were afraid to get hit. This is a historical problem for the Leafs. Our 3rd and 4th lines need to be filled in with big guys who can dish out hits, while our top two lines need to be beaten with wet towels and soap socks until they learn that getting hit isn't the end of the world.
- We gave up in the last 3 games. I think the team got complacent and didn't keep the peddle to the metal. I'm not sure what fixes this however.

Overall, I think you keep the management around and fill in a couple of glaring holes, while using a anti-invisibility potion on Matthews and Marner.

 

[4thline]

For sure. Losing your 2c and one of your top 4 forwards was always tough... but if that 2c made 6-7m there was more money to support the top 3.

You’re not wrong that this ultimately falls on Matthews and Marner, I’m just saying they could have overcome without Tavares with better structure.

And I'm saying they could have done it with the existing structure- had the stars delivered. And that healthy and playing to their abilities the existing structure beats the "better" structure, or is at worst even. It's an interesting optimization problem. But one that shouldn't have to exist. If the litmus test for a gm/team structure is "you need to win with your 2C out and two stars delivering 1 goal- combined" we're going to go through a gm per year.

Taking the thought a step further, if your better structure gets you through Montreal, is it carrying you to the cup with the stars as passengers or are you expecting AM/MM to step up in a big way and carry the mail the rest of the way? Because the answer fundamentally changes things. If the assumption is that AM/MM had a bad series but ARE capable of delivering in the playoffs, it's hard to justify changing the path forward based on two extremely unlucky things happening at the same time.

If the answer is that you don't think they can deliver, a lot of the anger at Dubas/Shanny is misplaced because they got duds with their top picks

 

[sparxx87]

Goals are at a premium in the playoffs.
Marner doesn’t score.
A different winger for Matthews (at cheaper) that can drive the net and score his own goals also helps Matthews. Harder in the forecheck changing the dynamic.

They spend too much time trying to score pretty ones and not enough trying to score greasy ones.

Part of this is coaching but a lot falls on personnel.

 

[4thline]

So he had 1 Stanely Cup and his numbers were even better. And I don't know about your inflation numbers, seems a tad high.

He signed mid season in his 3rd year. Zero cups. 14 points in 16 playoff games, had yet to exceed 72 points in a season.

11.09% * 81.5 = 9.04 * 5 years. I was going off memory

 

[sparxx87]

And I'm saying they could have done it with the existing structure- had the stars delivered. And that healthy and playing to their abilities the existing structure beats the "better" structure, or is at worst even. It's an interesting optimization problem. But one that shouldn't have to exist. If the litmus test for a gm/team structure is "you need to win with your 2C out and two stars delivering 1 goal- combined" we're going to go through a gm per year.

Taking the thought a step further, if your better structure gets you through Montreal, is it carrying you to the cup with the stars as passengers or are you expecting AM/MM to step up in a big way and carry the mail the rest of the way? Because the answer fundamentally changes things. If the assumption is that AM/MM had a bad series but ARE capable of delivering in the playoffs, it's hard to justify changing the path forward based on two extremely unlucky things happening at the same time.

Fair enough. I would be building something a little deeper because I believe it’s more sustainable over 4 rounds and 16 wins.

I think Matthews is capable of more but without much help a good defensive team can shadow him.. and when he did get chances he got Priced. Best goalie in the world at the height of his powers in big games got in his head.

Playoffs are all about matchups and Montréal wasn’t a good one for Toronto. I have full confidence Matthews would be near a goal per game in a Winnipeg series if they got there. Law of averages, right?

 

[4thline]

Fair enough. I would be building something a little deeper because I believe it’s more sustainable over 4 rounds and 16 wins.

I think Matthews is capable of more but without much help a good defensive team can shadow him.. and when he did get chances he got Priced. Best goalie in the world at the height of his powers in big games got in his head.

Other counterfactual, specifically on the Tavares vs. 6-7m 2C front. I agree that in the scenario where we lose the 2C that it's (naturally) better if it was a cheaper player going down with more depth left behind. But lets flip the script, which leaves us better shape if it's Matthews that goes down? After all we're deep in the weeds on the contingency planning/ redundancy side of roster construction

 

[sparxx87]

Other counterfactual, specifically on the Tavares vs. 6-7m 2C front. I agree that in the scenario where we lose the 2C that it's (naturally) better if it was a cheaper player going down with more depth left behind. But lets flip the script, which leaves us better shape if it's Matthews that goes down?

Touché.

... but honestly, any team losing their best player is probably pucked anyway.