Speculation: IF the Leafs don’t look legit

[Confucius]

There’s still a market. I mentioned the other day if they traded both JT and Marner and promoted the heck out the replacement they could maximizes jersey sales. I assume Pelley has run that model.

I’ve posted before, jersey sales mean squat, all jersey sales are shared by every team except those sold out of an mlse owned location. I’d think the Mitch Marner jersey sales have already been sold. A new guy would sell more.

 

[Fogelhund]

The other guy straight up called my opinions useless. I know that's not you, but "Gems" and "people would" are obviously snide and mocking. My knickers aren't in a twist about the whole thing, but neither of those responses were actually discussing the topic.

Choosing to bring back Tavares on a bargain deal is entirely about prioritization. If you prioritize asset management and having players under bargain contracts over culture change, then sure, to show him the door is not wise. If you prioritize the change, then bringing him back at any cost is not wise.

Management's job is to ice the best team they can both now and in the future. The Leafs are a going concern, which is why we don't trade all of our prospects and picks every year, there must be that eye towards tomorrow. Management could absolutely decide that they don't like this group and engage in a retool, believing it will lead to a better future for the team, and that's a concept well within the realm of professional sports reality. They aren't declining all strong C's on 2m/4m deals now and in the future, that would be very silly indeed, but if they're turning down Tavares that's telling a specific player that it's time to move on. Entirely plausible, for the reasons of prioritization that I've listed in these last two paragraphs.

Is this management group actually going to do that? Almost certainly not. But I'll hope and post anyways.

If internally they identify JT, or any other player, as a player who's ongoing actions, and play are detrimental to winning, then yes, you get rid of that player. That would be to change the culture.... but this sounds more like, change for the sake of change. There is no evidence, that JT, or other players are internal problems. At reduced cap hits, and roles, these players can be, and should be part of the future. If they aren't the leadership you need, you bring in leadership, and remove players from leadership positions.

Management isn't going to retool at this point... that's just not realistic.

 

[rumman]

Are you saying you haven't noticed?

There's something to see everywhere.

I couldn't care if they wore pink pajamas on the subway ... just win it while I still recognize it.

Well, Styles hasn’t won shit, elite zone entries aside, and them dressing up as Bo Derek would be far more acceptable if they were actual winners……..

 

[ULF_55]

JT at $6m is madness, at $2m it's madness to not pull the trigger.
You're paying that worthless plug Kampf more than that.

JT is pretty invisible 5v5 but he'd still pick up points on the PP, even on PP2

That easily would be going rate for him at this point.

Prices aren't going down.

 

[mjd1001]

In a scenario where the Leafs do not look like a true contender on the ice and place third in the Atlantic, do you keep Tavares and Marner as own rentals or trade them away?

Oh wow, if they are 3rd in the Atlantic, of course you keep them. 3rd in the Atlantic is still in the playoffs. Its still probably middle of the conference. In a single series, the other team getting 1 key injury that you don't get, or a bounce one way or the other and you are moving on.

The only way I think you move them is if you get a HUGE offer for them (not likely) or if you are on a pace for 90 or less points and its doubtful you even make the playoffs.

I like to look at it from the other side. Lets say the Leafs never had Marner or JT....and they look like they are in the playoffs and have the chance to add one of them at the deadline to help them in the playoffs, but only as a rental. I think many/most people would WANT to add them (even as a rental), so the fact that you have them already shouldn't mean you would want to get rid of them.

 

[Nineteen67]

It's because Marner was injured. You missed all his "magic".

That play where he injured himself is prime example of how bad they were to watch.

To be fair to the players going into the season they knew it was a write off year and their play reflected it. Maybe they were subconsciously trying to get the coach fired.

It was a mess to watch.

I’ve posted before, jersey sales mean squat, all jersey sales are shared by every team except those sold out of an mlse owned location. I’d think the Mitch Marner jersey sales have already been sold. A new guy would sell more.

They won’t sell Marner or Matthews jersey at the arena this year?

 

[Larcos_Unal]

That easily would be going rate for him at this point.

Prices aren't going down.

Doesn't mean we have to pay it, if he wants to relocate his family for a couple of mil he's more than welcome to. I hear tax rates in the states are pretty favorable.

 

[ULF_55]

Well, Styles hasn’t won shit, elite zone entries aside, and them dressing up as Bo Derek would be far more acceptable if they were actual winners……..

It sounds like you want to dictate how players dress, wear their hair off the ice.

Lamoriello agrees with you.

Martin Brodeur might agree but he stopped winning Lou Cups decades ago.

Off ice, off season is curiosity, shouldn't be a concern to us, as long as they are law abiding citizens.

Oh, one note, Nylander was MVP while winning World Championships, but he did have different teammates than the ones he plays with in the NHL. I accept, that isn't the NHL, and he's paid handsomely, even with his old contract, to win in the NHL, just like his overpaid teammates.

 

[Darcy Tucker]

Yet, they were not even remotely entertaining.

You didn't find Matthews scoring 69 goals the least bit entertaining?

 

[LeafGrief]

If internally they identify JT, or any other player, as a player who's ongoing actions, and play are detrimental to winning, then yes, you get rid of that player. That would be to change the culture.... but this sounds more like, change for the sake of change. There is no evidence, that JT, or other players are internal problems. At reduced cap hits, and roles, these players can be, and should be part of the future. If they aren't the leadership you need, you bring in leadership, and remove players from leadership positions.

Management isn't going to retool at this point... that's just not realistic.

I think that the evidence is right in front of our eyes that this team does not function as a cohesive unit in the playoffs. I believe there is plenty of evidence that John Tavares is a weak captain, and I think that we would be better off to just move on from him rather than have him continue in a diminished role within the team. I don't doubt that he's a stand-up dude and not some sort of toxic detriment to the team, but when you fire a leader you are ensuring that accountability is part of your culture. Keeping a former leader around can make sense in some circumstances, but a new leader is often benefited by not having the old leader around where they will constantly be compared to each other, and where subordinates might have divided loyalties, or not fully embrace the new leader out of deference or preference of the old one. And that's assuming the old leader is fully able to embrace their new role, which while I think it's reasonable to assume JT would be that kind of team player, it's not a guarantee that I'd trust.

No doubt that JT at 2m is a great deal from a cap efficiency standpoint and that's an important priority in teambuilding that I fully support, but I'd gladly trade that cap efficiency for a more solid leadership structure among the players, which I think is accomplished by having him fully out of the picture rather than just stripping the C. Similarly, when Shanahan finally goes it will be fully out the door, rather than demoting him to AGM or Pro Scout or something like that.

Retooling is a real approach to team building in the short and medium-terms. We've lost in the first round seven out of eight years years (charitably calling the CBJ series the first round), mostly in embarrassing or heartbreaking fashion, and the one second round appearance was a stinker, so I'd argue that a retool is perfectly realistic based on this team's recent history and core's demonstrated ability to win. But what I think you're arguing, and I entirely agree with, is that it is extremely unlikely that management is going to retool at this point. What's likely to happen is that we're going to re-sign Tavares to that cheaper deal, re-sign Marner to a colossal deal, and then continue our strategy of going into the playoffs and praying that they finally figure it out. What I want to happen is for us to change direction from this most likely course of action, because I believe it is unlikely that they will actually figure it out.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

If internally they identify JT, or any other player, as a player who's ongoing actions, and play are detrimental to winning, then yes, you get rid of that player. That would be to change the culture.... but this sounds more like, change for the sake of change. There is no evidence, that JT, or other players are internal problems. At reduced cap hits, and roles, these players can be, and should be part of the future. If they aren't the leadership you need, you bring in leadership, and remove players from leadership positions.

Management isn't going to retool at this point... that's just not realistic.

There has been zero accountability so I doubt this management group even wants to go through the exercise of making serious changes to the core.

Our version of accountability is “well, you guys set an all time pro sports record for consecutive losses in games where you can close a series but here’s the highest AAV contract in the league for your efforts”.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

I think that the evidence is right in front of our eyes that this team does not function as a cohesive unit in the playoffs. I believe there is plenty of evidence that John Tavares is a weak captain, and I think that we would be better off to just move on from him rather than have him continue in a diminished role within the team. I don't doubt that he's a stand-up dude and not some sort of toxic detriment to the team, but when you fire a leader you are ensuring that accountability is part of your culture. Keeping a former leader around can make sense in some circumstances, but a new leader is often benefited by not having the old leader around where they will constantly be compared to each other, and where subordinates might have divided loyalties, or not fully embrace the new leader out of deference or preference of the old one. And that's assuming the old leader is fully able to embrace their new role, which while I think it's reasonable to assume JT would be that kind of team player, it's not a guarantee that I'd trust.

No doubt that JT at 2m is a great deal from a cap efficiency standpoint and that's an important priority in teambuilding that I fully support, but I'd gladly trade that cap efficiency for a more solid leadership structure among the players, which I think is accomplished by having him fully out of the picture rather than just stripping the C. Similarly, when Shanahan finally goes it will be fully out the door, rather than demoting him to AGM or Pro Scout or something like that.

Retooling is a real approach to team building in the short and medium-terms. We've lost in the first round seven out of eight years years (charitably calling the CBJ series the first round), mostly in embarrassing or heartbreaking fashion, and the one second round appearance was a stinker, so I'd argue that a retool is perfectly realistic based on this team's recent history and core's demonstrated ability to win. But what I think you're arguing, and I entirely agree with, is that it is extremely unlikely that management is going to retool at this point. What's likely to happen is that we're going to re-sign Tavares to that cheaper deal, re-sign Marner to a colossal deal, and then continue our strategy of going into the playoffs and praying that they finally figure it out. What I want to happen is for us to change direction from this most likely course of action, because I believe it is unlikely that they will actually figure it out.

If the JT signing reinforced anything for me, is that captains need to be alphas. An NHL captain cannot be a wallflower and expect any kind of success.

 

[ULF_55]

Doesn't mean we have to pay it, if he wants to relocate his family for a couple of mil he's more than welcome to. I hear tax rates in the states are pretty favorable.

View attachment 899812

Yeah, I think he could just move up the highway to Ottawa ...

 

[notDatsyuk]

I like to look at it from the other side. Lets say the Leafs never had Marner or JT....and they look like they are in the playoffs and have the chance to add one of them at the deadline to help them in the playoffs, but only as a rental. I think many/most people would WANT to add them (even as a rental), so the fact that you have them already shouldn't mean you would want to get rid of them.

Then you look at their playoff performances and decide "no, they're really not what we need".

 

[LeafGrief]

If the JT signing reinforced anything for me, is that captains need to be alphas. An NHL captain cannot be a wallflower and expect any kind of success.

I think "alpha" is too loaded of a term to be useful in this case, but I agree with the premise that you can't be a wallflower. It's under his leadership that the team has become more and more about the big guns, and it's under his leadership that this team never seems to take accountability for itself. Ensuring accountability is one of the most important things a leader can do, so letting Marner blame the media, letting the team blame injuries, or goaltending, or what have you, that's poor leadership. Sometimes those things happen, but after six years as captain, that's your legacy.

Calm, quiet leaders can be very effective, especially when a team already has some other Matt Tkachuk type yappers to get the blood pumping. But where I will nod to the "alpha" idea is that with a good captain there is no doubt about who's team it is. JT is a good player, but we all know this isn't his team. It could have been, he got the C when the other guys were young enough, but he never successfully brought them under his wing. He's a figurehead C, rather than a leader who contributes to team success. If he was a strong leader, they'd have blown the Islanders out of the water when he got booed like that on his return home, and they'd have won that Montreal series for him. People will follow great leaders to the ends of the earth, whereas to weak leaders they just shrug.

 

[Fogelhund]

I think that the evidence is right in front of our eyes that this team does not function as a cohesive unit in the playoffs. I believe there is plenty of evidence that John Tavares is a weak captain, and I think that we would be better off to just move on from him rather than have him continue in a diminished role within the team. I don't doubt that he's a stand-up dude and not some sort of toxic detriment to the team, but when you fire a leader you are ensuring that accountability is part of your culture. Keeping a former leader around can make sense in some circumstances, but a new leader is often benefited by not having the old leader around where they will constantly be compared to each other, and where subordinates might have divided loyalties, or not fully embrace the new leader out of deference or preference of the old one. And that's assuming the old leader is fully able to embrace their new role, which while I think it's reasonable to assume JT would be that kind of team player, it's not a guarantee that I'd trust.

No doubt that JT at 2m is a great deal from a cap efficiency standpoint and that's an important priority in teambuilding that I fully support, but I'd gladly trade that cap efficiency for a more solid leadership structure among the players, which I think is accomplished by having him fully out of the picture rather than just stripping the C. Similarly, when Shanahan finally goes it will be fully out the door, rather than demoting him to AGM or Pro Scout or something like that.

Retooling is a real approach to team building in the short and medium-terms. We've lost in the first round seven out of eight years years (charitably calling the CBJ series the first round), mostly in embarrassing or heartbreaking fashion, and the one second round appearance was a stinker, so I'd argue that a retool is perfectly realistic based on this team's recent history and core's demonstrated ability to win. But what I think you're arguing, and I entirely agree with, is that it is extremely unlikely that management is going to retool at this point. What's likely to happen is that we're going to re-sign Tavares to that cheaper deal, re-sign Marner to a colossal deal, and then continue our strategy of going into the playoffs and praying that they finally figure it out. What I want to happen is for us to change direction from this most likely course of action, because I believe it is unlikely that they will actually figure it out.

My preference was to move Marner out this offseason, pre-draft, in a "culture change" and cap re-alignment move. I would keep Tavares, as I think he'll be happy extending for a much cheaper amount, and C's are much harder to replace than Wingers. My preferred move would have been for Shane Wright and Seattle's 1st round pick this year. Seattle picked Catton, though I probably would have targeted a D, such as Dickinson, Silayev or Parekh. I would have moved Kampf out... and targeted McBain from Utah as the 4C, and run with Matthews/Tavares/Wright/McBain as the C's for the year, with Wright and Tavares switching places as Wright's game grew. I would have targeted Patrick Kane to replace Marner, and had extra money for D improvements.

But, here we are, and like you say, my point is it's extremely unlikely that this management group would retool. It's compete as much as they can, until we don't make the playoffs on the merits (lack of) of the team.

 

[colchar]

Players with NMCs have been moved before. Tavares is unlikely but Marner may waive it to go to a team that wants to re-sign him. Will likely get more money over 8 years than he would over 7.

He has shown absolutely no indication that he would be willing to do so.

if by the TDL we suck I'd look to see if we could convince marner to be dealt and then deal Marner@50% retained for a 1st+Prospect

if he's not signed by the deadline, i'd deal him as losing him for nothing is next level idiocy

No movement clause. Why is that so f*****g difficult to understand?

 

[Nineteen67]

Players with NMCs have been moved before. Tavares is unlikely but Marner may waive it to go to a team that wants to re-sign him. Will likely get more money over 8 years than he would over 7.

I think the opposite - Marner will sign a contract so why not open it to the entire NHL market, whereas Tavares may want a chance to win a Cup and knowing he doesn't have many years left, might be willing waive.

 

[Leafsfan74]

In a scenario where the Leafs do not look like a true contender on the ice and place third in the Atlantic, do you keep Tavares and Marner as own rentals or trade them away?

The "I will believe it when I see it" mantra should be put on t-shirts. It encapsulates exactly what fans believe of this team, entirely the fault of their own (Dubas worst decisions were those RFA contracts).

Hayes has cemented himself as a true fan and analyst by having the courage to call it out. It lends credit to an industry which increasingly fans think is just a love-fest for the team.

The only way this Leaf team wins is if the metrics they care about decline sharply. This means noone (meaning far fewer of course) is buying Leaf mugs, caps or jerseys. No one reacts to their twitter posts. No one clicks on the links to their stories, fewer tune in to their games etc. There will be a point where a kid will say "why did you buy me this Leafs cap?"

They will continue to make ticket revenue because of the corporations. However, if interest declines, the corporations might be able to negotiate better terms for their ads. Ditto for their T.V deals which is more difficult to see a loss in revenue because of the high demand and low supply of games but the Rogers overpayment confirmed that networks need to proceed with caution, you can overpay for the rights.

Ultimately though, the Leafs own hubris, started by Ballard really; has ensured a lack of true leadership in management. In military terms, we lack our George Patton who demands success over marketing.

 

[Aashir]

No movement clause. Why is that so f*****g difficult to understand?

Holy f*** I’ve seen you say this over and over again acting like it’s a matter of fact.

Firstly, NMC’s ARE MOVEABLE, they get moved. They give players securities but if the situation is ass which it is in this scenario, the player won’t want to stick around. Whether he gives a 1 team list or 5, Marner might not want to stick around if we suck by tdl

Secondly, if you read what I said, “CONVINCE MARNER TO BE DEALT”, I never said anywhere that we can outright deal him, but like I said again, if we are somehow out of the playoff picture, why wouldn’t we at least approach and ask him where he’d be fine going.

Read the post then reply, not the other way around

 

[LeafGrief]

My preference was to move Marner out this offseason, pre-draft, in a "culture change" and cap re-alignment move. I would keep Tavares, as I think he'll be happy extending for a much cheaper amount, and C's are much harder to replace than Wingers. My preferred move would have been for Shane Wright and Seattle's 1st round pick this year. Seattle picked Catton, though I probably would have targeted a D, such as Dickinson, Silayev or Parekh. I would have moved Kampf out... and targeted McBain from Utah as the 4C, and run with Matthews/Tavares/Wright/McBain as the C's for the year, with Wright and Tavares switching places as Wright's game grew. I would have targeted Patrick Kane to replace Marner, and had extra money for D improvements.

But, here we are, and like you say, my point is it's extremely unlikely that this management group would retool. It's compete as much as they can, until we don't make the playoffs on the merits (lack of) of the team.

I like the sound of those moves! Alas that our management are paralyzed into inaction.

 

[therealkoho]

Shouldn't that go in the soft thread?

I thought that it was already heading towards maximum tumescence tbqh!

 

[therealkoho]

I don't see how losing Marner/Tavares is just a win/win for TOR. It's complex.

I think fans think that if they're both gone in 2025, that it will be a EA Sports nhl Manager Mode Christmas.

It would be nice to have more middle class players, but playing the UFA market is tricky.

And that UFA market is almost always overpaid by 10 to 20%. There are very few if any UFA contracts that still look good after 3 yrs or so. Maybe that's why Matthews keeps signing short term deals, although my feeling is that the next one that lad signs will be the max type both yrs and $s.

 

[therealkoho]

Only the results.

Leafs have the mirage of expectations.

Jays stink from the get go.

How ShitPyro still has a job is baffling to me

In 8 yrs he managed to take a young team with lots of hope and baseball talent and treat it like a feeder for the league draining the talent by trade or letting it walk and turning the real hope that was here into a team with no future.

 

[francis246]

Well, Styles hasn’t won shit, elite zone entries aside, and them dressing up as Bo Derek would be far more acceptable if they were actual winners……..

Wtf does it even matter. If you care about how they dress that just shows you as an insecure person imo. It shouldn’t matter how an athlete dresses, if they like to dance, if they like to play video games, if they have fake teeth, if they are married, if they love models. None of that should honestly matter. What matters is what do they do on the ice plain and simple. Everything else who the fck cares. It’s an outfit.