Should Toronto trade away their 1st and 2nd picks in 2022?

[PromisedLand]

IMO 1st round picks should be traded if the team has shown some evidence of progress in the playoffs such that adding pieces will help the pursuit of the cup

This team as far as I am concerned has not shown that they can get it done in the playoffs; given the past evidence I will be hesitant to part with the 1st and 2nd round picks

On the other hand, JT is not getting any younger and Willy/Matthews' next contracts are going to be tough to keep them all together given that the cap isn't going up anytime soon.

Its a tough decision; but.... Willy and Matthews are still with us for at least 2 more years after this season; so if they show some promise this playoffs then you make that investment in the other 2 years.

You add pieces to help your core; but the core has to perform in the playoffs first IMO. We have to see that Matthews and Marner can score in the playoffs when the games are tight with hardly any time and space available to make fancy plays. You can gamble and hope this is the year the core will perform but this might be a very risky gamble

 

[Dekes For Days]

What did Dubas learn from trading 3 picks including his 1st last year leaving the Leafs with only 3 picks in the 2021 entry draft?

The same thing he already knew - that you can afford to do that when you have a contending team, a weak draft year, 12 picks the year before, and you've built up a strong prospect pool.

 

[Nineteen67]

The same thing he already knew - that you can afford to do that when you have a contending team, a weak draft year, 12 picks the year before, and you've built up a strong prospect pool.

Dubas has never had a Cup contending team.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Dubas has never had a Cup contending team.

That's simply not true.

 

[PromisedLand]

The same thing he already knew - that you can afford to do that when you have a contending team, a weak draft year, 12 picks the year before, and you've built up a strong prospect pool.

How is it that you are calling Leafs a contending team when they haven't even won 1 round in the playoffs?

 

[Dekes For Days]

How is it that you are calling Leafs a contending team when they haven't even won 1 round in the playoffs?

Because whether or not somebody is a contending team is about more than exclusively what round they got to in the playoffs.

 

[PromisedLand]

Because whether or not somebody is a contending team is about more than exclusively what round they got to in the playoffs.

Besides the Leafs is there any other team in the league that have been labelled "contenders" without even winning 1 round of playoffs?

Your definition of "contending team" just doesn't seem rational

 

[Nineteen67]

That's simply not true.

The first round playoff exits, not only suggest it was true, it proves it was true.
The reasons they lost, lack of depth, insufficient goaltending, defensive lapses, and lack of mental and physical toughness weren’t going away had they got a little puck luck in round one.

 

[ACC1224]

Whatever Dubas decides no doubt it will the perfect move at the perfect time.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Besides the Leafs is there any other team in the league that have been labelled "contenders" without even winning 1 round of playoffs?

There are contenders every year that don't win a playoff round. It's the nature of the playoffs. In a longer term sense, Florida is an example of a current contending team in a similar position.

Your definition of "contending team" just doesn't seem rational

My definition of contending team is very rational. What's irrational is completely ignoring 90% of the games a team plays, and then also ignoring all context, information, and how the team played in the remaining 10%, in order to apply labels based entirely on who got to 4 wins first in a particular small sample.

The first round playoff exits, not only suggest it was true, it proves it was true.

Outplaying and outscoring and barely losing in 7 to the cup finalists while dealing with significant injury impacts does not prove anything, or erase our contender status. We had and continue to have an elite team and a good chance at the cup.

 

[Nineteen67]

There are contenders every year that don't win a playoff round. It's the nature of the playoffs. In a longer term sense, Florida is an example of a current contending team in a similar position.

My definition of contending team is very rational. What's irrational is completely ignoring 90% of the games a team plays, and then also ignoring all context, information, and how the team played in the remaining 10%, in order to apply labels based entirely on who got to 4 wins first in a particular small sample.

Outplaying and outscoring and barely losing in 7 to the cup finalists while dealing with significant injury impacts does not prove anything, or erase our contender status. We had and continue to have an elite team and a good chance at the cup.

It doesn’t mean they lacked depth and the mental toughness to beat a lottery team in round 1?
Did you see game 7? That was far from a Cup contending team. That was a fragile, broken, scared team.

 

[LeafGrief]

I wouldn't trade for rentals until this core proves that they have what it takes to get out of the first round tbh. Rentals are rarely worthwhile and our team has demons that are far bigger than the advantage that some depth would provide. I don't mind rentals in the grand scheme of things, but it's throwing draft picks away when the problems we've had the last few years are entirely between the core players' ears.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It doesn’t mean they lacked depth and the mental toughness to beat a lottery team in round 1?
Did you see game 7? That was far from a Cup contending team. That was a fragile, broken, scared team.

No, their results do not suggest a lack of depth or mental toughness. Yes, I saw game 7, and your interpretation of it is wildly incorrect. Montreal was also not a lottery team. This is actually quite ironic, because by the definition you are attempting to establish in this thread, Montreal is a contender. They beat three good teams on their way to the cup final (having most difficulty with us, by far, by the way). Yet here you abandon your own contender definition to label them a "lottery team", in order to exaggerate what happened to the Leafs.

 

[SHANNYPLAN]

Mikheyev, Holl & 1st
for
Miller @ 50% ret

Engvall & 2nd
for
Chiarot @ 50%

Miller - Matthews - Marner
Kerfoot - Tavares - Nylander
Ritchie - Kampf - Kase
Bunting - Spezza - Simmonds

Rielly - Brodie
Muzzin - Chiarot
Sandin - Liljigren

 

[AvroArrow]

Solely depends on what the return is.

 

[Nineteen67]

No, their results do not suggest a lack of depth or mental toughness. Yes, I saw game 7, and your interpretation of it is wildly incorrect. Montreal was also not a lottery team. This is actually quite ironic, because by the definition you are attempting to establish in this thread, Montreal is a contender. They beat three good teams on their way to the cup final (having most difficulty with us, by far, by the way). Yet here you abandon your own contender definition to label them a "lottery team", in order to exaggerate what happened to the Leafs.

There’s no doubt Montreal was better Toronto last year. But we are talking about the Leafs deficiencies. If you want to discuss the reasons Vegas’, Florida, Carolina don’t win, we can do that. They have similar flaws.

You still cant prove that Toronto was ever a legit Cup contender. A fragile team doesn’t win the NHL. Hopefully that never changes.

 

[Notsince67]

There’s no doubt Montreal was better Toronto last year. But we are talking about the Leafs deficiencies. If you want to discuss the reasons Vegas’, Florida, Carolina don’t win, we can do that. They have similar flaws.

You still cant prove that Toronto was ever a legit Cup contender. A fragile team doesn’t win the NHL. Hopefully that never changes.

Montreal was better and all of a sudden they're not? How specious. This kind of shit makes no sense. They won, sure but lesser teams beat better teams every day in sports. That is what upsets are defined as.

 

[Dekes For Days]

There’s no doubt Montreal was better Toronto last year.

They weren't though. The important thing to note here is that out of one side of your mouth, you're suggesting that playoff outcomes are the only thing that matters when determining the status of contender, which would make Montreal a contender, and yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're claiming that Montreal is a lottery team and our status as contender is nullified because we barely lost to them while experiencing significant injury impacts.

But we are talking about the Leafs deficiencies.

Actually, we seem to be discussing the definition of contender, while you make incorrect statements about our supposed deficiencies.

You still cant prove that Toronto was ever a legit Cup contender.

What's there to prove? Leafs are factually one of the best teams in the league, and have a decent chance at the cup. They are a contender, and there was legitimate justification to expend assets at the deadline last year.

 

[ACC1224]

Montreal was better and all of a sudden they're not? How specious. This kind of shit makes no sense. They won, sure but lesser teams beat better teams every day in sports. That is what upsets are defined as.

If anyone knows that it's Leaf fans.

 

[Nineteen67]

Montreal was better and all of a sudden they're not? How specious. This kind of shit makes no sense. They won, sure but lesser teams beat better teams every day in sports. That is what upsets are defined as.

Montreal was loose and rode Price and those big mean D, which energized their team. Had a nice path and caught lightning.

Going into the playoffs not many picked them or Toronto to make the finals.

 

[WillyC]

No, Toronto is ready to contend for the Cup right now with this team… I even think Nick Ritchie comes through in the post season this year.
This is the best Leafs team since 67.

 

[ToDavid]

As always, it depends entirely on the player.

The Leafs should not be spending a 1st on another washed up role player…

 

[Nineteen67]

They weren't though. The important thing to note here is that out of one side of your mouth, you're suggesting that playoff outcomes are the only thing that matters when determining the status of contender, which would make Montreal a contender, and yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're claiming that Montreal is a lottery team and our status as contender is nullified because we barely lost to them while experiencing significant injury impacts.

Actually, we seem to be discussing the definition of contender, while you make incorrect statements about our supposed deficiencies.

What's there to prove? Leafs are factually one of the best teams in the league, and have a decent chance at the cup. They are a contender, and there was legitimate justification to expend assets at the deadline last year.

What I said was, Dubas has never had a Cup contending team.

I suppose, any team that makes the playoffs considered a contender, but realistically, most people could see the flaws. Thankfully, teams like that don’t win.

At least he realises where the weaknesses are and tries to address them.

 

[Dekes For Days]

What I said was, Dubas has never had a Cup contending team.

And that was wrong. The Leafs last year had the 5th highest point total in the league, they convincingly won their division, they put up top-5 offensive and defensive results, and they had a solid goalie. They had a legitimate chance at the cup, and even played quite well in the playoffs through significant adversity. Just because they barely lost to a team that by your definition was one of biggest contenders in the league last year, it doesn't change the fact that Leafs were one of the best teams in the league, and expenditure of assets at the deadline was justified.

 

[ULF_55]

You mean for someone like Klingberg?

Yeah, maybe use the 1st. as an add-on in a permanent player, but not a rental.