Fire Shanahan/Dubas (Yay or Nay)

[sparxx87]

But the point I'm making is that judging a loss on the standard of "a true contender with a better structure would win" when literally the best example of a true contender with a great structure *wouldn't* overcome the specific injury/ no show hurdles is intellectually dishonest.

Tampa loses to Montreal with no Stamkos and 1 goal from Kucherov/Point
Tampa loses to Toronto with no Stamkos and 1 goal from Kucherov/Point

But I never said that. The example you have involved 3 top players where any two were as good or better value wise but for a lot less money so they can afford to supplement or backfill far better.

This is the point I’m making. In your hypothetical, there’s several million dollars unaccounted for

 

[4thline]

But I never said that. The example you have involved 3 top players where any two were as good value wise but for a lot less money so they can afford to supplement or backfill far better.

This is the point I’m making.

And yet- even with that better supplement, 1x injuries + 2x no shows = loss.

 

[sparxx87]

And yet- even with that better supplement, 1x injuries + 2x no shows = loss.

No, because there’s several million dollars unaccounted for in your scenario. How they spend that, and how much that player produces could have made a difference.

Unknown $5m+ player was probably good for a goal or two, no?

 

[4thline]

No, because there’s several million dollars unaccounted for in your scenario. How they spend that, and how much that player produces could have made a difference.

Tampa. I'm talking about Tampa. You said that they overcame the injury to Stamkos, just like (and I agree) that we should be able to overcome the injury to Tavares.

Tampa already has the hypothetical savings, because they're Tampa's actual contracts. They have the hypothetical bonus upgrade that savings represents. And even so, with those great contracts, with that added depth, if Kuch and Point didn't produce when Stamkos was out, they wouldn't have won.

So the literal standard for good management and structure wouldn't pass the test that ours failed in round 1.

 

[sparxx87]

Tampa. I'm talking about Tampa. You said that they overcame the injury to Stamkos, just like (and I agree) that we should be able to overcome the injury to Tavares.

Tampa already has the hypothetical savings, because they're Tampa's actual contracts. They have the hypothetical bonus upgrade that savings represents. And even so, with those great contracts, with that added depth, if Kuch and Point didn't produce when Stamkos was out, they wouldn't have won.

So the literal standard for good management and structure wouldn't pass the test that ours failed in round 1.

How do we know this? How do we know that this additional money to another good forward wouldn’t have made a difference? Just 1 overtime goal is all they needed.

Connor Brown came up pretty clutch the last week or so, eh?

 

[sparxx87]

Kasperi Kapanen seems to have a knack for big goals.

Remember when he stunned the Washington crowd from the 4th line on a great play from newly acquired supplemental centreman Brian Boyle?

Good times.

 

[4thline]

How do we know this? How do we know that this additional money to another good forward wouldn’t have made a difference? Just 1 overtime goal is all they needed.

Connor Brown came up pretty clutch the last week or so, eh?

Because it took 21 goals from Kuch and Point to go all the way. Any series with just 1 from the two of them likely stops the run then and there.

 

[sparxx87]

Because it took 21 goals from Kuch and Point to go all the way. Any series with just 1 from the two of them likely stops the run then and there.

Why does the goal distribution need to be exactly the same to win? Any single player lost will change the dynamic but when a team less eggs in one basket, they not only have better sustainability if they lose one basket, but their other baskets are also far more economical.

You’re just proving my point.

 

[IPS]

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

Chicago's GM proved far better foresight than Dubas did when he signed Kane who proceeded to have a Conn Smythe worthy playoffs blowing the doors off with 28 points in 22 games.

Dubas' foresight proved to be extremely poor when Marner has done the opposite and has choked in the playoffs.

Kane also finished that season 9th in league scoring. Better than Marner's finish of 11th in league scoring. Disingenuous of you to spout "yet to exceed 72 points in a season".

 

[4thline]

Why does the goal distribution need to be exactly the same to win? Any single player lost will change the dynamic but when a team less eggs in one basket, they not only have better sustainability if they lose one basket, but their best baskets are also far more economical.

You’re just proving my point.

It doesn't. But it can't be next to zero from your top three forwards. Any star driven team will falter if you remove the stars/ they don't perform.

So you're changing your stance? Tampa would have found a way to win without Stamkos even if Kuch/Point averaged 1 goal per 7 games between them?

 

[sparxx87]

Chicago's GM proved far better foresight than Dubas did when he signed Kane who proceeded to have a Conn Smythe worthy playoffs blowing the doors off with 28 points in 22 games.

Dubas' foresight proved to be extremely poor when Marner has done the opposite and has choked in the playoffs.

Marner faced 2nd and 3rd pairs his first three years.

Dubas misread his actual impact based on where he was playing relative to where he would be playing with that contract.

The same issue happened with Lamoriello and Zaitsev.

 

[sparxx87]

It doesn't. But it can't be next to zero from your top three forwards. Any star driven team will falter if you remove the stars/ they don't perform.

So you're changing your stance? Tampa would have found a way to win without Stamkos even if Kuch/Point averaged 1 goal per 7 games between them?

I’m saying you aren’t accounting for another top 6 forward they can afford with their more economical and less too heavy cap structure.

There’s a million ways a game of inches can play out differently with a few minor changes or an extra top 6 forward once you’ve lost a top 3.

 

[sparxx87]

@4thline

What about points? How do the rest of Tampa’s 12 forwards stack up to the Leafs in these series’ behind the top 2?

And how many of those 21 goals were assisted by mid level contracts? Palat, Gourde, Killiorn etc. Players the Leafs can’t afford with their top 3?

 

[4thline]

I’m saying you aren’t accounting for another top 6 forward they can afford with their more economical and less too heavy cap structure.

I am though, because said forward is part of their (Tampa's) roster. The hockey has been played. Whether you assign it to Cirelli/Gourde/Johnson/Palat, the team that they built with that more economical structure needed 22 goals from their big 3 to win the cup. They probably could have done it with less but they could not have done it with 1 per series.

 

[sparxx87]

I am though, because said forward is part of their (Tampa's) roster. The hockey has been played. Whether you assign it to Cirelli/Gourde/Johnson/Palat, the team that they built with that more economical structure needed 22 goals from their big 3 to win the cup. They probably could have done it with less but they could not have done it with 1 per series.

But how do we know this? If they replayed all the games again, I think Tampa wins again, but doesn’t necessarily came with the same goal distribution. How many times could the puck find someone else on the play? How many times could Point or Kucherov passed off a chance they would have shot in a different scenario where one of many other good players could have finished?

 

[4thline]

But how do we know this? If they replayed all the games again, I think Tampa wins again, but doesn’t necessarily came with the same goal distribution. How many times could the puck find someone else on the play? How many times could Point or Kucherov passed off a chance they would have shot in a different scenario where someone else finishes the play?

Of course the distribution would change, but the overall premise is completely substandard offensive performance from the guys you're counting on.
I edited another question. But I think a fair followup.

A. Would you bet on Tampa winning a 7 game series when the only knowledge you have is that Stamkos/Kucherov/Point will end with 1 goal and less than 10 points between them?

B. If they lost said series, would it be proof that their structure didn't work?

 

[Trapper]

Marner faced 2nd and 3rd pairs his first three years.

Dubas misread his actual impact based on where he was playing relative to where he would be playing with that contract.

The same issue happened with Lamoriello and Zaitsev.

It’s much easier to shuffle around when you have Kadri/Bozak/JVR/Komarov/Brown/Boyle etc. to hide around.

We used to be a nation of depth, now we are just individuals on an island. It’s looking like Gilligan’s Island.

That why a high salary needs to go and quality depth built around.

 

[rumman]

It’s much easier to shuffle around when you have Kadri/Bozak/JVR/Komarov/Brown/Boyle etc. to hide around.

We used to be a nation of depth, now we are just individuals on an island. It’s looking like Gilligan’s Island.

That why a high salary needs to go and quality depth built around.

Misfit island fits the narrative perfectly......

 

[sparxx87]

Of course the distribution would change, but the overall premise is completely substandard offensive performance from the guys you're counting on.
I edited another question. But I think a fair followup.

A. Would you bet on Tampa winning a 7 game series when the only knowledge you have is that Stamkos/Kucherov/Point will end with 1 goal and less than 10 points between them?

B. If they lost said series, would it be proof that their structure didn't work?

But this is the danger in putting so much money into so few good players. Any one of them lost is far more devastating.

A) Yes. If Kucherov and Point only had one goal I’d bet they were both flush with assists because someone else finished the sustained pressure they create from so much talent and versatility.

B) Did they lose to the worst team in the playoffs?

 

[koyvoo]

The Shanny era is the best era in franchise history, since the 60s at least.

Both the Burns and Quinn era teams were more successful. On top of having more success, those teams had players who actually elevated their level of play when games mattered and opponents brought max effort every shift, as opposed to failing to play to their standards and abilities for five straight post seasons.

 

[sparxx87]

It’s not all about points. I don’t know how many he had, but I know Josh Anderson created 2-3 goals he didn’t get a point on by driving the net and putting pressure down low that opened up higher ice for the Habs to make a play.

So many little things that good players do that won’t ever register on the stats you’re trying to crunch.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

As much as Kadri is a moron for making brain dead plays when it matters, he bled blue and white and would not have given one inch up in the playoffs to the Habs.

 

[4thline]

But this is the danger in putting so much money into so few good players. Any one of them lost is far more devastating.

A) Yes. If Kucherov and Point only had one goal I’d bet they were both flush with assists because someone else finished the sustained pressure they create from so much talent and versatility.

B) Did they lose to the worst team in the playoffs?

A.) that's not a smart bet, based on their actual scoring rates and proportion of team offense. You're also trying to circumvent the question, because the premise has always been about stars no-showing, with goals as a proxy. Replace it with 9 points in 7 games between the 3 players.

B.)Can we call Montreal the worst team in the playoffs if they beat a team that's beat team?

It actually seems that we're getting farther from agreement as the day goes on lol.

Let's revert to "any team that loses their best player is likely pucked"

 

[sparxx87]

As much as Kadri is a moron for making brain dead plays when it matters, he bled blue and white and would not have given one inch up in the playoffs to the Habs.

He gets to the dirty areas and he would have made a positive impact in front of the net on their PP. 2x 30 goal guy in that role.

 

[sparxx87]

A.) that's not a smart bet, based on their actual scoring rates and proportion of team offense. You're also trying to circumvent the question, because the premise has always been about stars no-showing, with goals as a proxy. Replace it with 9 points in 7 games between the 3 players.

B.)Can we call Montreal the worst team in the playoffs if they beat a team that's beat team?

It actually seems that we're getting farther from agreement as the day goes on lol.

Let's revert to "any team that loses their best player is likely pucked"

Maybe, but it’s also incredibly unlikely to get 1 goal from the Bolts duo. Marner, at least there’s a precedent. Shouldn’t expect him to score regardless.

You’re trying to overlook the point that more good players will create more good chances... and that other, better supporting players the Leafs can’t afford, played a role in the 21 goals for Point and Kucherov.

You’re trying to oversimplify.