Toggle sidebar

Recalled/Assigned: Hutchinson Back Up, Kaskisuo Sent Down

Fogelhund

Fogelhund

Registered User
Sep 15, 2007
23,310
27,446
Daisy Jane said:
no. it wasn't. it so. very clearly was not the right move at the time. and it's a move that's now hurt us for now 1.5 years and counting.
Click to expand...

Say what now... you draft a guy in 2011. You spend seven years training him, grooming him to be a player for your franchise.

In your decision year, he has the following accolades.

But you are going to get rid of this 24/25 year old up and coming player, for a 35 year old goalie, who just had his best year, and has otherwise been... just ok?

Please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joey Hoser, smitty10, Kiwi and 9 others
Bluebear

Bluebear

Registered User
Nov 30, 2018
244
153
Fogelhund said:
Say what now... you draft a guy in 2011. You spend seven years training him, grooming him to be a player for your franchise.

In your decision year, he has the following accolades.

But you are going to get rid of this 24/25 year old up and coming player, for a 35 year old goalie, who just had his best year, and has otherwise been... just ok?

Please.
Click to expand...


I would have at the time if I was gm. Not that I think it was a major screw up, because of the resume above. The factor that would have decided it for me is Anderson. They had their starter, they had a good team, I would have tried to parlay Sparks into a draft pick, kept the band together and gone with Curtis. If at the time they were picking a backup and also looking for a new #1 then I would have picked Sparks. Either way I don't think it's worth rehashing to slam Dubas, because either decision had merits and no one has a crystal ball.
 
ACC1224

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
76,625
43,118
Fogelhund said:
Say what now... you draft a guy in 2011. You spend seven years training him, grooming him to be a player for your franchise.

In your decision year, he has the following accolades.

But you are going to get rid of this 24/25 year old up and coming player, for a 35 year old goalie, who just had his best year, and has otherwise been... just ok?

Please.
Click to expand...
Looks like a perfect sell high candidate since you already had a successful tandem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daisy Jane
Daisy Jane

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,377
9,634
Fogelhund said:
Say what now... you draft a guy in 2011. You spend seven years training him, grooming him to be a player for your franchise.

In your decision year, he has the following accolades.

But you are going to get rid of this 24/25 year old up and coming player, for a 35 year old goalie, who just had his best year, and has otherwise been... just ok?

Please.
Click to expand...


Good for him.
but as a GM (at the time) in one of the tightest divisions, and knowing that both of the teams that would directly stand in my way has excellent backup goaltenders that regardless if the starter got injured, that the team wouldn't miss a beat, I would have to be beyond sure that Sparks would have been able to hit the ground running. and he to do that (as fair/unfair as it is, and it's the NHL there's nothing "fair" about it), he needed to steal the back up job from Curtis. Which he didn't do. There is no one ion this earth that would have said. "oh yeah you know totally confidence in this guy" from this periods. (Curtis didn't do anything to risk and ultimately being exposed).

Everyone wants to play the age game who had "just been okay" but the team was comfortable around him, played relatively decent in front of him, and If Babcock was actually the type of person who used his back up more, I don't think he would have faltered. and considering that Carolina and Tampa use him (tampa right now). him being 36-37 doesn't seem to be a hindrance. There was nothing in Curtis's play that screamed "he'll decline." other than people who feel that once you turn 30 you're basically dead and they don't want them on this team. (not saying that's you for the record).

I've said it before and I said it again. there were only a few instances where i would have said that it was worth it to keep sparks.
1: He was clearly and obviously an elite goaltending prospect that it was so clear that he was going to take over Freddy's position, so we needed to save him. and there was nothing indicating in his play (even while he was winning all those accolades) that this was the case according to a lot more people versed in "Goalie" than I.

or

2: he clearly stole Curtis's job.

Sparks was neither. And once that was evident that he didn't do #2, I would have risked the guy who you know, chances are i'm probably not going to miss because it's a whole hecka "what if" vs. the guy that i know is okay and everyone is comfortable around.

and because of that dumbo decision that Dubas made, we didn't have a capable back up goaltender. something that was evident from training camp. and. something that's continually hurt the team. so yeah. 10x10 with all those factors in mind, I'd rather pick the commodity that i know that i have than pick the guy who didn't do anything to instill confidence that he could be a decent back up at the NHL level, at all.
 

bodechek

Registered User
Oct 10, 2017
325
254
No point in revisiting this Sparks/McElhinney thing. Both are now gone and the present backup situation is even worse. McElhinney's contract was up and they still had to get Nylander signed with Matthews and Marner down the road. Had they kept McElhinney, then Tarvares does not come to Toronto there wouldn't of been enough money.
 

JT AM da real deal

Registered User
Oct 4, 2018
12,354
7,766
Fogelhund said:
Say what now... you draft a guy in 2011. You spend seven years training him, grooming him to be a player for your franchise.

In your decision year, he has the following accolades.

But you are going to get rid of this 24/25 year old up and coming player, for a 35 year old goalie, who just had his best year, and has otherwise been... just ok?

Please.
Click to expand...
We should have kept both. It was a mistake letting McBackup go. and then another offing Sparkie for a bag of pucks and gettin Hutch. Team went from a position of strength to an OK position to where we are now. Nothing short of incompetence.
 
Fogelhund

Fogelhund

Registered User
Sep 15, 2007
23,310
27,446
JT AM da real deal said:
We should have kept both. It was a mistake letting McBackup go. and then another offing Sparkie for a bag of pucks and gettin Hutch. Team went from a position of strength to an OK position to where we are now. Nothing short of incompetence.
Click to expand...

Could we have kept all three on the roster?
 
HamiltonNHL

HamiltonNHL

Resigning Marner == Running it back
Jan 4, 2012
22,710
13,884
What percentage of goalies drafted in the 7th round become Top 50 NHL goalies ?

EED6291D-BFAD-4C26-BAFD-AB1B68262954.jpeg
 

ER89

Registered User
Jul 25, 2018
4,700
4,739
Daisy Jane said:
Good for him.
but as a GM (at the time) in one of the tightest divisions, and knowing that both of the teams that would directly stand in my way has excellent backup goaltenders that regardless if the starter got injured, that the team wouldn't miss a beat, I would have to be beyond sure that Sparks would have been able to hit the ground running. and he to do that (as fair/unfair as it is, and it's the NHL there's nothing "fair" about it), he needed to steal the back up job from Curtis. Which he didn't do. There is no one ion this earth that would have said. "oh yeah you know totally confidence in this guy" from this periods. (Curtis didn't do anything to risk and ultimately being exposed).

Everyone wants to play the age game who had "just been okay" but the team was comfortable around him, played relatively decent in front of him, and If Babcock was actually the type of person who used his back up more, I don't think he would have faltered. and considering that Carolina and Tampa use him (tampa right now). him being 36-37 doesn't seem to be a hindrance. There was nothing in Curtis's play that screamed "he'll decline." other than people who feel that once you turn 30 you're basically dead and they don't want them on this team. (not saying that's you for the record).

I've said it before and I said it again. there were only a few instances where i would have said that it was worth it to keep sparks.
1: He was clearly and obviously an elite goaltending prospect that it was so clear that he was going to take over Freddy's position, so we needed to save him. and there was nothing indicating in his play (even while he was winning all those accolades) that this was the case according to a lot more people versed in "Goalie" than I.

or

2: he clearly stole Curtis's job.

Sparks was neither. And once that was evident that he didn't do #2, I would have risked the guy who you know, chances are i'm probably not going to miss because it's a whole hecka "what if" vs. the guy that i know is okay and everyone is comfortable around.

and because of that dumbo decision that Dubas made, we didn't have a capable back up goaltender. something that was evident from training camp. and. something that's continually hurt the team. so yeah. 10x10 with all those factors in mind, I'd rather pick the commodity that i know that i have than pick the guy who didn't do anything to instill confidence that he could be a decent back up at the NHL level, at all.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make too much sense. The downside of sparks being a bonafide starter and us trading him away is more than the downside of not finding another goalie to replace Mac. If you want to criticize dubas as he couldn't find a suitable back up due to the contracts he handed out...? Fine by me. But to say to bet on a younger guy who we developed and had a history of success is silly.

Furthermore, I'm not entirely certain that the same folks who were so against that decision wouldn't pipe up if Sparks had become a legit starter elsewhere even if Mac was a capable back-up for us, claiming that it would be crappy asset management. But even if they did die by the sword, I don't understand how you don't bet on the guy you have developed and was improving in the NHL.

Also, while I will readily admit it turned into a decision that didn't work out for us at all, and that Mac had a fantastic last year with the leafs and a solid year with the canes after that, this year he is .898 sv pctg goalie, that too in front of Tampa's vaunted defense (which mind you is still better than hutch's 876) isn't anything to write home about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Nylund and SAMCRO44
1specter

1specter

Registered User
Sep 27, 2016
12,219
18,336
Daisy Jane said:
and there was nothing indicating in his play (even while he was winning all those accolades) that this was the case according to a lot more people versed in "Goalie" than I.
Click to expand...
This is just some serious revisionist history lol. There's a fairly strong track record of goalies who performed similar to Sparks at the same age that went on to become at least solid back-ups and in some cases very good starters as well. The AHL has also come a long way over the last decade in terms of talent and skill so Sparks performing how he did was pretty impressive and statistically he had some of the best seasons ever for an AHL goalie especially at his age. You also don't have to go to the extreme and say we should only keep him if "he's for sure taking over Freddy's position in a few years", we can just say "hey this guy looks like he could be a pretty solid goalie let's see what we have" and that's fair enough on it's own. And yeah his training camp performance wasn't great but neither's was McElhinney's and goalies can have very rough stretches in small sample sizes; just look at Carter Hart so far and all the ups and downs he's gone through already in a short time and how people have flip flopped between him being a bust and a good goalie.

It was a calculated risk that the hindsight police will come and claim that they saw it coming from the beginning but there are times where you take a risk on your homegrown talent to see what you have, unfortunately in this case it didn't work out. Sparks had proven everything there was to prove in the AHL.

Like @ER89 said though, there's a good chance the same people complaining that this bad from the beginning would probably also complain if Sparks was let go and did well elsewhere. And like he also said, if you want to complain about the backup situation because Dubas blew contract negotiations and can't afford a backup that costs anything more than league minimum, then that's a much more reasonable and better argument and one that I would probably side with you on too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Nylund and ER89
Buds17

Buds17

Registered User
Nov 29, 2015
8,573
3,586
Fogelhund said:
Could we have kept all three on the roster?
Click to expand...

That just seems like delaying a decision though. It wouldn't be easy to find enough playing time for three goalies. It only really works if both backup candidates are viewed as being on an entirely even level. It made sense to me for instance when the team was deciding between Borgman and Rosen for what was eventually one spot. That was because neither had yet played in the NHL.
 
Martin Skoula

Martin Skoula

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
12,205
17,168
1specter said:
This is just some serious revisionist history lol. There's a fairly strong track record of goalies who performed similar to Sparks at the same age that went on to become at least solid back-ups and in some cases very good starters as well. The AHL has also come a long way over the last decade in terms of talent and skill so Sparks performing how he did was pretty impressive and statistically he had some of the best seasons ever for an AHL goalie especially at his age. You also don't have to go to the extreme and say we should only keep him if "he's for sure taking over Freddy's position in a few years", we can just say "hey this guy looks like he could be a pretty solid goalie let's see what we have" and that's fair enough on it's own. And yeah his training camp performance wasn't great but neither's was McElhinney's and goalies can have very rough stretches in small sample sizes; just look at Carter Hart so far and all the ups and downs he's gone through already in a short time and how people have flip flopped between him being a bust and a good goalie.

It was a calculated risk that the hindsight police will come and claim that they saw it coming from the beginning but there are times where you take a risk on your homegrown talent to see what you have, unfortunately in this case it didn't work out. Sparks had proven everything there was to prove in the AHL.

Like @ER89 said though, there's a good chance the same people complaining that this bad from the beginning would probably also complain if Sparks was let go and did well elsewhere. And like he also said, if you want to complain about the backup situation because Dubas blew contract negotiations and can't afford a backup that costs anything more than league minimum, then that's a much more reasonable and better argument and one that I would probably side with you on too.
Click to expand...

It also sends a bad message. You can do everything we ask of you for 7 years, win every major award you can possibly win without playing in the NHL, ride the bus for an AHL salary for most of a decade, and we'll still give a 35 year old journeyman who had one good season the job instead of you. That flies in the face of everything that the Leafs have said about their development process as an organization.

The problem was not adequately fixing the backup position once it was clear Sparks couldn't handle it. But even then, the odds of both McBackup and Pickard getting claimed on waivers at a time when most rosters are pretty set were low, we should have come out of that situation with at least one of them on the Marlies. Sometimes things just line up that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aingefan, ER89 and 1specter
SeaOfBlue

SeaOfBlue

The Passion That Unites Us All
Aug 1, 2013
35,591
16,776
Martin Skoula said:
It also sends a bad message. You can do everything we ask of you for 7 years, win every major award you can possibly win without playing in the NHL, ride the bus for an AHL salary for most of a decade, and we'll still give a 35 year old journeyman who had one good season the job instead of you. That flies in the face of everything that the Leafs have said about their development process as an organization.

The problem was not adequately fixing the backup position once it was clear Sparks couldn't handle it. But even then, the odds of both McBackup and Pickard getting claimed on waivers at a time when most rosters are pretty set were low, we should have come out of that situation with at least one of them on the Marlies. Sometimes things just line up that way.
Click to expand...

When was that clear though? Offseason? April-ish? Sparks had a decent save percentage (~.906) and a great record (7-2-1) until February, and then everything just fell off from there... Both for him and the team. Went 2-7-0 and had like an .890 starting in February. He tried his best to keep the team in games, and he did let in a few weak goals, but the Leafs didn't deserve to win any of those games. Even with McElhinney in net, it wouldn't have been a pretty record unless he went full-on beast mode... And based on his play in Carolina behind that quality of defense, he wasn't going to go full-on beast mode.

My problem was them thinking Hutch was going to be an improvement on Sparks, and was going to be the guy to mask their real problems: Their efforts on back-to-backs. That is the real solution to our backup problem, and they already took a huge step to solving it by dumping Babcock. Now if we could only get a better backup than Hutch, we are probably fine.
 
Fogelhund

Fogelhund

Registered User
Sep 15, 2007
23,310
27,446
SeaOfBlue said:
When was that clear though? Offseason? April-ish? Sparks had a decent save percentage (~.906) and a great record (7-2-1) until February, and then everything just fell off from there... Both for him and the team. Went 2-7-0 and had like an .890 starting in February. He tried his best to keep the team in games, and he did let in a few weak goals, but the Leafs didn't deserve to win any of those games. Even with McElhinney in net, it wouldn't have been a pretty record unless he went full-on beast mode... And based on his play in Carolina behind that quality of defense, he wasn't going to go full-on beast mode.

My problem was them thinking Hutch was going to be an improvement on Sparks, and was going to be the guy to mask their real problems: Their efforts on back-to-backs. That is the real solution to our backup problem, and they already took a huge step to solving it by dumping Babcock. Now if we could only get a better backup than Hutch, we are probably fine.
Click to expand...

It was obvious though, that Sparks was done here. Him staying, wasn't an option. I have no idea what happened exactly, but it was obvious he was out.

Agreed, that relying on Hutch was not a good move. Of course we had Neuvirth, who they were really hoping for, and I would suppose didn't expect him to cave the way he did.
 
Martin Skoula

Martin Skoula

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
12,205
17,168
SeaOfBlue said:
When was that clear though? Offseason? April-ish? Sparks had a decent save percentage (~.906) and a great record (7-2-1) until February, and then everything just fell off from there... Both for him and the team. Went 2-7-0 and had like an .890 starting in February. He tried his best to keep the team in games, and he did let in a few weak goals, but the Leafs didn't deserve to win any of those games. Even with McElhinney in net, it wouldn't have been a pretty record unless he went full-on beast mode... And based on his play in Carolina behind that quality of defense, he wasn't going to go full-on beast mode.

My problem was them thinking Hutch was going to be an improvement on Sparks, and was going to be the guy to mask their real problems: Their efforts on back-to-backs. That is the real solution to our backup problem, and they already took a huge step to solving it by dumping Babcock. Now if we could only get a better backup than Hutch, we are probably fine.
Click to expand...

Part of it was Sparks talking to the media at all. Your job as a back-up in Toronto is to be invisible and just do your job as well as you can. So I guess sometime around March of last year should have been the start of the search for a better back-up.
 
Dave92

Dave92

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2019
4,101
5,041
Fogelhund said:
Say what now... you draft a guy in 2011. You spend seven years training him, grooming him to be a player for your franchise.

In your decision year, he has the following accolades.

But you are going to get rid of this 24/25 year old up and coming player, for a 35 year old goalie, who just had his best year, and has otherwise been... just ok?

Please.
Click to expand...

He went into training camp as 1 of 3 potential backups and looked like the worst of the 3 in camp. He also looked terrible in his previous NHL stint.

Every outside observer at the time thought he had lost the job, keeping him was far from the obvious choice.

Every AHL and OHL championship team is full of players that excel at that level but will never be NHL caliber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X