ALine
Registered User
- May 14, 2012
- 1,328
- 132
Touché. I walked right into that one.Most teams don't replace their Hockey Hall of Fame GM after setting a franchise best mark after only 2 years after finishing dead last overall.
Inheriting a 69 point team and drafting your teams franchise #1C Matthews and 2 season later are posting a 105 point record setting season with a game #7 round #1 loss.
That is a +36 point improvement in the standings.
While inheriting a 105 point team (along with a core of Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Rielly etc) and 4 seasons later while these kids are now in their primes produces a 115 point season that's only a +10 point improvement regular season with zero improvement/advancement in the playoffs.
That improvement alone could be chalked up the growth and maturation of those core players alone.
Core Before - Ages 19 - 23
View attachment 660169
Core After - Ages 23-27
View attachment 660172
Matthews alone the player Lou Lam drafted went from 63 points ( as part of 105 point team) to 60 goals (as part of 115 point result).
Matthews wins the Rocket (most goals) and Hart (league MVP) and Dubas is riding the coattails of the best player he inherited.
Back at you.. If Lou Lam wasn't given an opportunity after setting a franchise record points then why should Dubas be given more time?
But get out of here with the HOF accolades. Nothing he did with the leafs comes anywhere close to that. That waste of words is a ploy, or as we like to call in the business, a red herring. That dog don’t hunt as far as the leafs go.
As far as the core goes, you must have missed the part Dubas had to totally reshaped the roster apart from 4 players.
The walk up to the Everest base camp covers more ground, but is infinitely easier then shorter climb up to the peak.