How much faith do you have in the core 4?

[GoLeafsGo96]

This sport is random as f***, designed to have as much parity as possible based on how restrictive the hard cap is and the sooner people realize that the easier watching gets. Playoffs are about getting hot at the right time (see, MTL, DAL, NJ).

If Mikheyev tips in the open net in game 5 Bergevin is fired, Habs blow up their team. Instead were talking about the Leafs potentially needing to blow it up.

Washington struggled for years, was down 2-0 to Columbus who had a puck laying on the goal line in OT, would have put the Caps down 3-0 in the first round in the year they won.

It's not a fun or sexy answer, but the margin between winning and losing is razor thin, there is no need for grand explicit statements about the core itself. If you want to make the argument the team would be better by splitting one of the big 4 contracts (were talking Marner mostly, since Willy you cant really replace for his $$$, Tavares NMC, Matthews because hes the best player to put the Jersey on so far in the history of this team) then fine. But it's not about will to win, or that nonsense.

Genuinely give this core enough chances and theyll break through. Still believe it, don't think they should break it up a year after playing without Tavares the entire series. They fixed the D last year, and saw dramatic defensive improvements in their metrics. They can fix the powerplay with better strategy and player personnel choices IMO.

I think this past Leafs team was the best one we've seen in a long time. This loss hurts because of what could be - but it doesn't change that fact. Blowing it up makes them worse.

 

[zeke]

Except the window is starting to get shorter with Matthews and Nylander eligible to begin negotiations two years from now. If playoff failures persist, 2023 is going to be a spicy summer in Leaf-land.

Eh. I've watched the leafs for a long long time. This core is our best chance at a cup(s) I've ever seen. I'm not giving up on them at age 23.

If they don't win they don't win but we're not getting a better chance anytime soon (or maybe ever) if we blow it up.

 

[ToneDog]

Eh. I've watched the leafs for a long long time. This core is our best chance at a cup(s) I've ever seen. I'm not giving up on them at age 23.

If they don't win they don't win but we're not getting a better chance anytime soon (or maybe ever) if we blow it up.

This core at 3/4 AAV might be our best chance but at 100% it is a longshot IMO.

 

[Mugzy97]

Is expecting him to play up to his contract in the playoffs expecting too much?

We get it, his regular season numbers look good, nobody is disputing that. When you look at the playoffs however, there has been a massive decline from the regular season for 3 years in a row.

Is a bunch of regular season points really adequate compensation for years of playoff failures?

No, but it is a relatively small sample size compared to the season.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

This sport is random as f***, designed to have as much parity as possible based on how restrictive the hard cap is and the sooner people realize that the easier watching gets. Playoffs are about getting hot at the right time (see, MTL, DAL, NJ).

If Mikheyev tips in the open net in game 5 Bergevin is fired, Habs blow up their team. Instead were talking about the Leafs potentially needing to blow it up.

Washington struggled for years, was down 2-0 to Columbus who had a puck laying on the goal line in OT, would have put the Caps down 3-0 in the first round in the year they won.

It's not a fun or sexy answer, but the margin between winning and losing is razor thin, there is no need for grand explicit statements about the core itself. If you want to make the argument the team would be better by splitting one of the big 4 contracts (were talking Marner mostly, since Willy you cant really replace for his $$$, Tavares NMC, Matthews because hes the best player to put the Jersey on so far in the history of this team) then fine. But it's not about will to win, or that nonsense.

Genuinely give this core enough chances and theyll break through. Still believe it, don't think they should break it up a year after playing without Tavares the entire series. They fixed the D last year, and saw dramatic defensive improvements in their metrics. They can fix the powerplay with better strategy and player personnel choices IMO.

I think this past Leafs team was the best one we've seen in a long time. This loss hurts because of what could be - but it doesn't change that fact. Blowing it up makes them worse.

This is all loser talk.

I guarantee that if the leafs are ever successful in the playoffs, it won't be "luck" to all of you and your ilk. It will be "genius" Dubas and our "generationally" talented young core.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Eh. I've watched the leafs for a long long time. This core is our best chance at a cup(s) I've ever seen. I'm not giving up on them at age 23.

If they don't win they don't win but we're not getting a better chance anytime soon (or maybe ever) if we blow it up.

What about keeping 3 of the 4 main core, and acquiring some assets/cap space to give the team more depth?

We will no longer be performing an unprecedented experiment, and would be following much more closely to what other teams succeed with.

I think very very few are saying "blow it all up". It's more "Let's make some changes while keeping most of the core together."

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

This is all loser talk.

I guarantee that if the leafs are ever successful in the playoffs, it won't be "luck" to all of you and your ilk. It will be "genius" Dubas and our "generationally" talented young core.

The genius would be sticking with it despite all of the losses and not blowing it up if they win because of the randomness year to year and thin margins that my post talks about, that is the whole point.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

The genius would be sticking with it despite all of the losses and not blowing it up if they win because of the randomness year to year and thin margins that my post talks about, that is the whole point.

According to your argument, why don't we just abandon all 4 of the core players and just roll the die? It's all "luck" anyways, right? Like you said, one Mikeyev shot away from a horrible team being eliminated and many many firings due to how horrible their team is. It's all just luck. Why don't we just go the luck route?

 

[ShaneFalco]

Eh. I've watched the leafs for a long long time. This core is our best chance at a cup(s) I've ever seen. I'm not giving up on them at age 23.

If they don't win they don't win but we're not getting a better chance anytime soon (or maybe ever) if we blow it up.

Noone is saying blow it up. You just can't have Mitch making 11 mill

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

According to your argument, why don't we just abandon all 4 of the core players and just roll the die? It's all "luck" anyways, right? Like you said, one Mikeyev shot away from a horrible team being eliminated and many many firings due to how horrible their team is. It's all just luck. Why don't we just go the luck route?

You're dumbing down the argument facetiously.

The point is that on paper the core 4 is the best they've had in a long time, as evidences by their regular season and individual successes that we haven't seen in a long time. The D they ran out last year was the best 1-6 D they had in twenty years. The point is to evaluate the team and its flaws as a whole, not based on a 7 game series without one of the "core" guys that the thread is talking about breaking up.

Last year - they had a big issue with the D (Barrie was not great, Ceci not great). They fixed the D and their underlyings showed that. They sacrificed depth scoring and now need to find a way to improve that around the margins. I would bet on the big 4 to produce come playoff time over average players - which is not leaving it up to luck the way you're phrasing my argument.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

You're dumbing down the argument facetiously.

The point is that on paper the core 4 is the best they've had in a long time, as evidences by their regular season and individual successes that we haven't seen in a long time. The D they ran out last year was the best 1-6 D they had in twenty years. The point is to evaluate the team and its flaws as a whole, not based on a 7 game series without one of the "core" guys that the thread is talking about breaking up.

Last year - they had a big issue with the D (Barrie was not great, Ceci not great). They fixed the D and their underlyings showed that. They sacrificed depth scoring and now need to find a way to improve that around the margins. I would bet on the big 4 to produce come playoff time over average players - which is not leaving it up to luck the way you're phrasing my argument.

I think it's more that your argument is nonsensical. Not that it's being dumbed down.

You're pretty much saying that "on paper" means nothing in the playoffs, and it's all about "luck" and "whose hot at the right time".

As a response to that argument, we should keep the leafs together because they're good on paper.

I don't know man...

It sounds like just a bunch of lame excuses.

What's FAR more common than the players eventually figuring it out (like Washington) is a team never figuring it out... then looking back in hindsight and saying "Why'd we try that for so freaking long when it was so obviously failing?".

 

[Trapper]

This core at 3/4 AAV might be our best chance but at 100% it is a longshot IMO.

I still think one of the 4 should be a quality D. We need an anchor on the back.

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

I think it's more that your argument is nonsensical. Not that it's being dumbed down.

You're pretty much saying that "on paper" means nothing in the playoffs, and it's all about "luck" and "whose hot at the right time".

As a response to that argument, we should keep the leafs together because they're good on paper.

I don't know man...

It sounds like just a bunch of lame excuses.

What's FAR more common than the players eventually figuring it out (like Washington) is a team never figuring it out... then looking back in hindsight and saying "Why'd we try that for so freaking long when it was so obviously failing?".

I'm not saying it means nothing. I'm saying it means less than everyone thinks it does because the sport is random, so you evaluate using a larger sample size because you're going to have better results long-term using that frame for evaluation. Doesn't mean nothing but luck matters. You have to be good to win and the teams that go on "lucky" runs rarely ever win the cup - as we just saw.

Its not even excuses in the sense that - they need to be better. I'm really only saying that I think Marner at his $$$ provides more value to the Leafs than trading him and replacing him with two or three guys that aren't as good - and that the fact they lost is greatly exaggerated to causation that there has to be some fatal flaw with the core.

Tampa won the president's trophy, got swept by an average team, then went back to back with largely the same core - just tweaking around the edges. Yes they had playoff success before getting swept - I know that. Shouldn't that make it more insane/unlikely that they got swept by Columbus in the year they did, since the core showed they could actually have success in the playoffs or "had what it took to win rounds" so to speak like everyone keeps touting here? Tampa isn't Toronto - i'm not trying to say they are - largely just using as an example to support the randomness of the sport.

 

[keonsbitterness]

Eh. I've watched the leafs for a long long time. This core is our best chance at a cup(s) I've ever seen. I'm not giving up on them at age 23.

If they don't win they don't win but we're not getting a better chance anytime soon (or maybe ever) if we blow it up.

Moot point since no one is getting blown up this summer.

Suppose we're at the same point next summer -- should one of them go?

 

[TheScandal89]

I believe in them as players, but when they took us to the cleaners and left nothing to fill out the roster then you can't build a deep enough team.

I originally had the leafs paying Marner 8.5, Nylander 6.5 and Matthews 10.5. Obviously it didnt turn out that way, certainly not fron the hometown boy Marner, who took Dubas to the cleaners.

Now Tavares, its so difficult to complain because he was a UFA signing and he took less then the reported 13 Mil offer by the sharks. I have no complaints about him as a person or player, but it just sucks that he wasn't willing to take even less. Its easy for me to say, of course.

With that said, Tavares' health is gonna be a major concern because that was a major concussion. Theres many ways it could effect him physically and mentally on the ice.

 

[rumman]

Except the window is starting to get shorter with Matthews and Nylander eligible to begin negotiations two years from now. If playoff failures persist, 2023 is going to be a spicy summer in Leaf-land.

It’s going to take a exceptional GM to reinvent the Leafs when Dubas is eventually fired. I’m predicting plenty of assets walking, and the draft pick cupboard being pretty bare. Ain’t life grand?

 

[rumman]

Leafs - Expected
Reality - Actual

Leafs - Talented
Reality - Winners

Leafs - Unlucky
Reality - Worked harder

Spot on, you need a playbook to follow the English language in this “woke” era.

 

[rumman]

Eh. I've watched the leafs for a long long time. This core is our best chance at a cup(s) I've ever seen. I'm not giving up on them at age 23.

If they don't win they don't win but we're not getting a better chance anytime soon (or maybe ever) if we blow it up.

Have you watched the last 5 years of post season hockey?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I'm not saying it means nothing. I'm saying it means less than everyone thinks it does because the sport is random, so you evaluate using a larger sample size because you're going to have better results long-term using that frame for evaluation. Doesn't mean nothing but luck matters. You have to be good to win and the teams that go on "lucky" runs rarely ever win the cup - as we just saw.

Its not even excuses in the sense that - they need to be better. I'm really only saying that I think Marner at his $$$ provides more value to the Leafs than trading him and replacing him with two or three guys that aren't as good - and that the fact they lost is greatly exaggerated to causation that there has to be some fatal flaw with the core.

Tampa won the president's trophy, got swept by an average team, then went back to back with largely the same core - just tweaking around the edges. Yes they had playoff success before getting swept - I know that. Shouldn't that make it more insane/unlikely that they got swept by Columbus in the year they did, since the core showed they could actually have success in the playoffs or "had what it took to win rounds" so to speak like everyone keeps touting here? Tampa isn't Toronto - i'm not trying to say they are - largely just using as an example to support the randomness of the sport.

Tampa won 2 rounds the year before the Columbus series. The leafs have still never won a round.

And I somewhat accepted that lame excuse last year after the leafs lost to (lol) Columbus. Everyone was like "well, same happened to Tampa and then they won the cup. Let's hold the fort.".

What was my response to that? "Ok, fine. We'll give it one more year. But I will only accept this excuse ONCE. If the leafs lose in the first round again next year, they better DAMN WELL not use this same bullshit excuse again."

Btw, I'm pretty confident that if Tampa lost in the first round the year after the Columbus loss, significant changes would have been made.

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

Tampa won 2 rounds the year before the Columbus series. The leafs have still never won a round.

And I somewhat accepted that lame excuse last year after the leafs lost to (lol) Columbus. Everyone was like "well, same happened to Tampa and then they won the cup. Let's hold the fort.".

What was my response to that? "Ok, fine. We'll give it one more year. But I will only accept this excuse ONCE. If the leafs lose in the first round again next year, they better DAMN WELL not use this same bullshit excuse again."

Btw, I'm pretty confident that if Tampa lost in the first round the year after the Columbus loss, significant changes would have been made.

This is literally my point though - don't you see that? The same core that won before the series with Columbus, lost in 4 straight to Columbus. Then they won back to back cups (the first year without Stamkos!) The variability in results between those 4 years is exactly the randomness I'm talking about. Add in Washington winning with a significantly worse roster than they had the two years prior to their cup run - and well, exactly. That's why you create as elite of a core as possible and alter the edges over and over, and take as many cracks as you can.

The Leafs were not a great team last year - they were the 8th seed playing the 9th seed. Their D wasn't good, their forwards were fine - and they shot like 2% at even strength in an even shorter 5 game series. They made changes, not trading the core - that made the team significantly better this year IMO (Brodie was a huge upgrade to the D, making it the best D 1 through 6 this team has had in twenty years I still maintain).

I'm not saying they lost because of luck. They should have beat MTL - they were up 3-1. The difference between MTL being out in game 5 of the first round and making the finals was Mikheyev missing an empty net in the dying seconds of a game - what does that tell you about luck in the sport? I'm only saying that blowing it up based on the limited sample we have here is silly, when we've seen that sticking with it does typically result in success in the future.

 

[pspot]

They cant trade JT /thread

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

I’ve seen more successful Leafs teams in my lifetime.

I would rather the Leafs win the Cup with no one scoring more than above 50 points in the regular season than this bullshit we have the "privilege" of watching now. Rockets, Hart votes, Team All-Stars, all f***ing worthless if this team can't do shit when it matters most.

 

[Trapper]

This is literally my point though - don't you see that? The same core that won before the series with Columbus, lost in 4 straight to Columbus. Then they won back to back cups (the first year without Stamkos!) The variability in results between those 4 years is exactly the randomness I'm talking about. Add in Washington winning with a significantly worse roster than they had the two years prior to their cup run - and well, exactly. That's why you create as elite of a core as possible and alter the edges over and over, and take as many cracks as you can.

The Leafs were not a great team last year - they were the 8th seed playing the 9th seed. Their D wasn't good, their forwards were fine - and they shot like 2% at even strength in an even shorter 5 game series. They made changes, not trading the core - that made the team significantly better this year IMO (Brodie was a huge upgrade to the D, making it the best D 1 through 6 this team has had in twenty years I still maintain).

I'm not saying they lost because of luck. They should have beat MTL - they were up 3-1. The difference between MTL being out in game 5 of the first round and making the finals was Mikheyev missing an empty net in the dying seconds of a game - what does that tell you about luck in the sport? I'm only saying that blowing it up based on the limited sample we have here is silly, when we've seen that sticking with it does typically result in success in the future.

The Leafs haven’t shown us anything.
Even the teams that lost showed some progress.

You can’t expect a buy in on a plan or core and keep failing at the starting line over and over and expect people to say ok saddle up.

Tampa wasn’t paying Point and Kucherov Cup winning money either.
Kucherov didn’t get it until 3rd salary, Point took a bridge to keep more support talent.
Stamkos could have gotten 9.5-10.

We paid for champions, are told they will be champions yet zero playoff success needs to go with it. Not even a lousy round. Beating Columbus on a play in. Winning when you are up 3-1.
Beating a Zamboni driver. Showing up or the 1st game back in NY for Tavares. Playing harder to protect a rookie goalie.
Nothing. You have to give a little to get.
Give me something and I’ll have their back a little more.

 

[Gary Nylund]

No, but it is a relatively small sample size compared to the season.

After three years, the sample size isn't that small any more. Hockey career's ain't that long, three consecutive years of playoff suckage represents a good chunk of any players career.

What about keeping 3 of the 4 main core, and acquiring some assets/cap space to give the team more depth?

We will no longer be performing an unprecedented experiment, and would be following much more closely to what other teams succeed with.

I think very very few are saying "blow it all up". It's more "Let's make some changes while keeping most of the core together."

Exactly.

You're dumbing down the argument facetiously.

The point is that on paper the core 4 is the best they've had in a long time, as evidences by their regular season and individual successes that we haven't seen in a long time. The D they ran out last year was the best 1-6 D they had in twenty years. The point is to evaluate the team and its flaws as a whole, not based on a 7 game series without one of the "core" guys that the thread is talking about breaking up.
.

Five straight first round exits suggests that maybe this core isn't as good as you think. According to calculations done by Dom at the Athletic, the odds of the Leafs losing all five series was 1.4% or something like that yet when all the chips are in the pot, the Leafs just fold without a fight like a spineless bunch of losers every damn time.

Moot point since no one is getting blown up this summer.

Suppose we're at the same point next summer -- should one of them go?

Fair question. Considering who it is you're asking though, don't expect a straight answer. At best you're gonna get a snootful of spin.

This is literally my point though - don't you see that? The same core that won before the series with Columbus, lost in 4 straight to Columbus. Then they won back to back cups (the first year without Stamkos!) The variability in results between those 4 years is exactly the randomness I'm talking about. Add in Washington winning with a significantly worse roster than they had the two years prior to their cup run - and well, exactly. That's why you create as elite of a core as possible and alter the edges over and over, and take as many cracks as you can.

Some variability would be nice. Unfortunately we just lose every year, as consistent as consistent can be. And in deciding games, oh boy do we ever stink in those. You've probably heard the phrase "rising to the occasion", basically we do the opposite.

 

[yubbers]

I still think one of the 4 should be a quality D. We need an anchor on the back.

Mitch for Doughty and LA retains 3 mil. We save 3 in cap space and get the crazy mofo we need and D anchor in 1. It's a ballsy trade. Mitch would love LA being the lil playboy wuss he is :p