Confirmed with Link: [TOR/COL] F Denis Malgin for F Dryden Hunt

[Mess]

Still pissed about losing Bernie Parent. (Not really..time heals some wounds, no telling how he would have played behind Jim McKenny)

Me too .. Can you picture Parent playing behind Sittler, MacDonald, Salming, Turnbull etc?

During the 1973–74 and 1974–75 seasons, in what many consider the finest consecutive seasons ever by a goaltender, the Flyers won two Stanley Cups and Parent won the Vezina Trophy and Conn Smythe Trophy both seasons.

The Malgin for Hunt trade is not at this level.

 

[Hellcat]

I remember watching Marchment EXTREMLY closely when he had his 4 game audition with the Leafs.
He had been having a productive AHL season and the Leaf roster ws a wasteland of Petan's, Aberg, Shore, Timashov, FREDDY the GOAT and Brooks.

Had Marchment come up as advertised and finished some checks, provided some energy, rubbed a glove in someones face.
He did absolutely nothing. I was fine with his demotion and then shipping him out for a guy with some potential.

I remember that too, he looked like he was skating in sand, that is probably not the reason why we traded him though, good teams don't make knee jerk reactions based off a small sample size. Us fans do make those knee jerk reactions, I hear Timmons is replacing Rielly. ..

 

[Judas Tavares]

I guess he will be put on Legends Row now

 

[mikeyz]

You know that we're getting f***** over when even Simpson is defending the Leafs.

Edit: Oops. Wrong thread. LMFAO

 

[wingman75]

Liked what I saw. Better skated than I remembered. Felt Keefe mismanaged the ice time in that game tonight, the bottom two lines were actually the ones generating the offence (so my eyes tell me). Would have liked to see him get more ice time, but felt like a positive debut.

 

[Menzinger]

Delivered what one wants to see from a physical 4th type. Crashed and banged when given the chance

 

[Magic Man]

I remember Marchment coming up and killing someone on his first or second shift. Don't remember him much after that though. He could have done more.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Liked what I saw. Better skated than I remembered. Felt Keefe mismanaged the ice time in that game tonight, the bottom two lines were actually the ones generating the offence (so my eyes tell me). Would have liked to see him get more ice time, but felt like a positive debut.

Nah the 4th line was useless today. Holmberg did well when playing with skill guys on the PP, but that 4th line just does not have enough skill for the NHL. You can maybe get by with one of Hunt or ZAR in your lineup for the defensive ability and toughness, but they weren't even great in their own end today and left Holmberg with nothing to work with.

I think in specific situations, they have value. If you are confident in your top 3 lines providing offense, then they do a decent job most of the time with low event hockey with heavy defensive zone starts (in general, not recently). If you need some toughness, I would be fine putting a ZAR or Hunt out there to provide it over putting Simmonds out there.

The thing is our 3rd line is already a far better shutdown line and can bring offensive ability to the table as well but we probably could use 4 lines which can bring that punch. These guys are like a bottom 6 shutdown line, but bottom 6's do not need to be shutdown... Just outplay them and take control offensively, which they haven't been able to do in their careers.

I think you run into the same issue with Anderson playing there too, except Anderson has shown the ability to compliment skill players so if you put him with a (healthy) Robertson or Steeves and Holmberg, you may have a line which has a good amount of energy, may not be as good defensively as having a pair of defensive specialists but will probably spend a lot less time in their own end as well, and can bring a lot more secondary offense to the table. Or for that matter, you could even give Gaudette or McMann a chance but I think Steeves should be the first guy given a chance out of the bunch. SDA and Abruzzese have looked good as well but they are too similar to Holmberg. Steeves is a better shooter and that is what the line needs. Plus he plays with a bit more raw energy to pair up with Anderson so you don't lose too much of it when ZAR and Hunt comes out.

Then when Knies shows up, he could easy join that 4th line and bring that same essence if he is not a fit in the top 6 or if Jarnkrok continues to dominate up there.

 

[Buds17]

Fine enough for a debut with a new team. Can't say he was a liability during his limited TOI.

 

[Magic Man]

Nah the 4th line was useless today. Holmberg did well when playing with skill guys on the PP, but that 4th line just does not have enough skill for the NHL. You can maybe get by with one of Hunt or ZAR in your lineup for the defensive ability and toughness, but they weren't even great in their own end today and left Holmberg with nothing to work with.

I think in specific situations, they have value. If you are confident in your top 3 lines providing offense, then they do a decent job most of the time with low event hockey with heavy defensive zone starts (in general, not recently). If you need some toughness, I would be fine putting a ZAR or Hunt out there to provide it over putting Simmonds out there.

The thing is our 3rd line is already a far better shutdown line and can bring offensive ability to the table as well but we probably could use 4 lines which can bring that punch. These guys are like a bottom 6 shutdown line, but bottom 6's do not need to be shutdown... Just outplay them and take control offensively, which they haven't been able to do in their careers.

I think you run into the same issue with Anderson playing there too, except Anderson has shown the ability to compliment skill players so if you put him with a (healthy) Robertson or Steeves and Holmberg, you may have a line which has a good amount of energy, may not be as good defensively as having a pair of defensive specialists but will probably spend a lot less time in their own end as well, and can bring a lot more secondary offense to the table. Or for that matter, you could even give Gaudette or McMann a chance but I think Steeves should be the first guy given a chance out of the bunch. SDA and Abruzzese have looked good as well but they are too similar to Holmberg. Steeves is a better shooter and that is what the line needs. Plus he plays with a bit more raw energy to pair up with Anderson so you don't lose too much of it when ZAR and Hunt comes out.

Then when Knies shows up, he could easy join that 4th line and bring that same essence if he is not a fit in the top 6 or if Jarnkrok continues to dominate up there.

This team as a whole is soft. They have more than enough scoring and defensive specialists. If they aren't going to target a Crouse or someone like him for the middle six I think they can get away with some 4th liners that go boom if they can bring a defensive effort.

Add a couple real nasty top-9 players and you can sit a guy like Hunt or ZAR if need be. But, they are desperate for that player type.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

This team as a whole is soft. They have more than enough scoring and defensive specialists. If they aren't going to target a Crouse or someone like him for the middle six I think they can get away with some 4th liners that go boom if they can bring a defensive effort.

Add a couple real nasty top-9 players and you can sit a guy like Hunt or ZAR if need be. But, they are desperate for that player type.

"Going Boom" doesn't win hockey games. Scoring and defense does.

Guys like ZAR and Hunt get a pass if they can bring some other value to the table. For both, that was being defensive specialists. However, unless he was playing with Kampf, ZAR has been fairly leaky defensively playing in soft minutes all season. His hits are mostly unremarkable for the most part, even though the totals are high. They aren't generating a ton of value. I think the only thing he has really done "well" this year is PK, but even then he is 5th in PK ice time for forwards so he is not exactly a key PKer.

Hunt's hits were more noticeable, but not for the right reason. He was lucky that he didn't take a stupid penalty for a hit from behind. Then he got into a fight for that hit. The rest of the time, his line was getting caved in. It is only one game so he is going to get more opportunities, but if this is the standard he brings, then we would have been better off with Malgin... Or turning to Marlies who can bring skill and grind it out.

Also, for a team that is "soft", we have no issues getting to and scoring from the middle of the ice nor preventing chances and goals from the middle of the ice. Nor winning board battles for that matter. So how exactly are we soft? Not enough people willing to crack skulls?

 

[Hellcat]

"Going Boom" doesn't win hockey games. Scoring and defense does.

You think a physical brand of hockey does not win games?

Lets play a game, I will get someone to pass you the puck 40 times, let me hit you into the boards 40 times at high speed and then I will give you an option 1) I can continue to hit you at high speed or 2) I can stop.

Defeat the spirit and the mind will follow, physical play has a valued place in hockey.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You think a physical brand of hockey does not win games?

Physicality is just one of many attributes that can be utilized to help win games (sacrificing one for another doesn't improve anything), and unfortunately, the type of physicality that actually helps wins games also tends to get overlooked for the more flashy, less impactful forms of physicality. Using your physical attributes to protect the puck, separate the puck from the opposition, get into high-danger areas, protect your high-danger areas, win board battles, etc. has value, but that's already stuff that our so-called "soft" team already does quite well.

Chasing big hits, punching faces, and getting in scrums - the type of "physicality" that people here want to downgrade our team for - are pretty irrelevant to winning games. Certainly much less impactful than the player quality you'd be sacrificing.

 

[stickty111]

Hunt was fine but if the best he does is fight, than I rather go with Anderson.

 

[Hellcat]

Physicality is just one of many attributes that can be utilized to help win games (sacrificing one for another doesn't improve anything), and unfortunately, the type of physicality that actually helps wins games also tends to get overlooked for the more flashy, less impactful forms of physicality. Using your physical attributes to protect the puck, separate the puck from the opposition, get into high-danger areas, protect your high-danger areas, win board battles, etc. has value, but that's already stuff that our so-called "soft" team already does quite well.

Chasing big hits, punching faces, and getting in scrums - the type of "physicality" that people here want to downgrade our team for - are pretty irrelevant to winning games. Certainly much less impactful than the player quality you'd be sacrificing.

For most people I think it goes without saying there is not one size fits all. What worked well last year may not work well this year. As long as Hockey has hitting as part of its game, physical play will be an ingredient needed to win.

If you think about it players dislike getting hit hard more than they dislike being scored on. How often do we see a dog pile after a clean hard hit? How often do we see a dog pile after a goal was scored (Hunter)?

Hunt was fine but if the best he does is fight, than I rather go with Anderson.

He didn't fight all that well, the fight was awkward IMO.

 

[Knies iT]

9 times/10 Hunt should be in a rotation with ZAR at 4th line LW. He's an average at best 4th liner but knows his role.

However, there will be a time in the playoffs when the Leafs get embarrassed (happens to all teams) and they will need a physical response for a game. In that case you can ice both and it won't hurt you as much as Simmonds/Clifford would.

 

[Dekes For Days]

For most people I think it goes without saying there is not one size fits all. What worked well last year may not work well this year. As long as Hockey has hitting as part of its game, physical play will be an ingredient needed to win.

Physicality will remain one of many different attributes and skills that a player can utilize to win, but it is not any more necessary than anything else. There are many different ways to win.

If you think about it players dislike getting hit hard more than they dislike being scored on. How often do we see a dog pile after a clean hard hit? How often do we see a dog pile after a goal was scored (Hunter)?

That's a ridiculous way to determine "what players dislike more", and "what players dislike more" also isn't really what's relevant here. Players get upset about unsuspecting and predatory hits because there's an injury risk to the person, which can have ramifications beyond what they all understand to be a game and job. Goals against happen quite a lot; it would be pretty silly to dog pile every time. Players take hits to make plays all the time, and also throw themselves in front of rock hard lumps propelled at 100mph for a tiny bonus to preventing a goal against, so I don't know why you act like these professionals are so scared of a guy finishing his check.

And what's relevant here is the game impact, not what they dislike anyway. The goal against has a way bigger impact on the game outcome than some big hit. In fact, half the time, a big hit just seems to wake up the other team, and/or give them a PP. We have quite a bit of the physicality that's actual beneficial to winning, despite the fact that we don't go around chasing big hitz.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

Hunt was fine but if the best he does is fight, than I rather go with Anderson.

Not sure he's great at fighting but man can he take a punch like a goddamned champ

 

[SeaOfBlue]

You think a physical brand of hockey does not win games?

Lets play a game, I will get someone to pass you the puck 40 times, let me hit you into the boards 40 times at high speed and then I will give you an option 1) I can continue to hit you at high speed or 2) I can stop.

Defeat the spirit and the mind will follow, physical play has a valued place in hockey.

I'll play that game... While you are passing me the puck 40 times, you are lucky to even get 5 hits in on me before the end of the game while I spend the vast majority of the time peppering your goalie while you head back to the bench for all but maybe 8 minutes of the game sitting on your butt while watching your actually good players trying to pick up your slack.

That is reality. Not whatever convoluted scenario you just made up.

Or if it really bothered me, I would learn how to take, avoid, or dish out a hit... All things which the vast majority of professional hockey players learn by the time they are in bantam and can be nice compliments to the skills and traits that actually help them win games.

If throwing hits is the only thing you bring to the table, then you can bet that your time in the NHL is coming to an end... Because you can bet there are dozens of hard working energy players just waiting to take your job and can bring more to the table.

Then I won't have to worry about you hitting me anymore

 

[Kyle089]

I liked from what I saw from Hunt last night. He was physical when the opportunity presented himself, but didn't see him chasing hits. Pinned the opposition deep with his relentless forecheck, allowing the top lines to come out on a change and continue the play in the offensive zone. He even drew a penalty because of his forechecking and hard work, which led to Jarnkrok's goal on the powerplay. Good skater and isn't a liability in the defensive zone. He won't score a ton, but again he's on the 4th line, he's not expected to be a big time goal scorer.

 

[Hellcat]

I'll play that game... While you are passing me the puck 40 times, you are lucky to even get 5 hits in on me before the end of the game while I spend the vast majority of the time peppering your goalie while you head back to the bench for all but maybe 8 minutes of the game sitting on your butt while watching your actually good players trying to pick up your slack.

That is reality. Not whatever convoluted scenario you just made up.

Or if it really bothered me, I would learn how to take, avoid, or dish out a hit... All things which the vast majority of professional hockey players learn by the time they are in bantam and can be nice compliments to the skills and traits that actually help them win games.

If throwing hits is the only thing you bring to the table, then you can bet that your time in the NHL is coming to an end... Because you can bet there are dozens of hard working energy players just waiting to take your job and can bring more to the table.

Then I won't have to worry about you hitting me anymore

It's not convoluted to most people, it illustrates a point that the vast majority of people don't like to get physically abused. Your first instinct, as you replied in your first paragraph, is you would avoid/run from physical contact, which confirms the intent of my original post, people don't like to get hit in any form, they avoid it, it's instinctual, it's a natural response, its built in as a self preservation survival skill. It's a tactic to gain the upper hand in hockey. Slap a guy a few times in the head and you'll see his will to challenge you disappear.

To your second point which is very valid, you'd learn to accept pain. Before I began training, my training partner asked me what do you want to accomplish from this and what is preventing you from accomplishing it. I was honest I said I wanted to be able to defend myself and to get over the fear of getting punched in the head. Fast forward many years later and many kicks, elbows and fists to my body, after pushing through the mental fear barrier, I no longer fear physical contact. It's not enjoyable to get a kick to the shins but I don't fear it. You said you would learn how to get over it, and that is the challenge, the the vast majority of people wont go through the training that it takes to overcome the mental block that discomfort is not a bad thing. They think they can but they can't, it's unnatural for a person to not fear pain. I've literally seen thousands of people come and go over the years, convinced they are going to become that image in their head of the guy they want to be but quit because they are not mentally tough or disciplined enough to hack training. Hockey players are no different, most of them will disappear if they are repeatedly hit (Nylander is a great example of that type of disappearing player, elite talent but weak mentally). Soft is soft, that is why there are so few Mark Messiers and so many Alex Kerfoot's. Not to mention that with physicality comes injuries, if you could play vs a Austin Matthews at 100% or an injured Austin Matthews at 50%, which one are you taking? When I'm hitting, I'm hitting to take his will to compete away, I'm hitting to take his desire to win away, I'm hitting to take his physical ability to play at 100% away.

To your last point, no one ever said throwing hits is the only ingredient to a winning team. Physical play is one important ingredient. It's like saying if offence is all you bring then your time is limited in the NHL, of course that is obvious. Eventually teams will learn your tendencies and shut you down.

You implied that physical player cannot a be good player, from your 8 minutes a game comment. I'm making the assumption that an 8 minute player is a 4th liner in your analogy? You don't think Ovie is a good player? Kadri is not a good player? The Tkachuk brothers are not good players? Miller is not a good player? So on and so on and so on...

You don't have to agree with me, you can have a POV but to dismiss something that is a demonstrable truth because it does not align to your belief system, is simply being myopic. Physical play has a place in hockey and if done correctly will give a team an advantage.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Hunt and ZAR on the 4th line at the same time just doesn't work, not even Holmberg can save them. Things looked a lot better with Joey Anderson instead of Hunt

 

[OVO16]

Hunt and ZAR on the 4th line at the same time just doesn't work, not even Holmberg can save them. Things looked a lot better with Joey Anderson instead of Hunt

Lmao no it didn't. Joey Anderson was slow, disengaged, and useless 90% of the time outside of an occasional forecheck.

Hunt actually has the speed to go in on the forecheck and cause havoc with his physicality. Our 4th line was a lot more noticeable in the Arizona game.

 

[Its not your fault]

I remember Marchment coming up and killing someone on his first or second shift. Don't remember him much after that though. He could have done more.

Turn to page 51 to find out more.

 

[Stephen]

9 times/10 Hunt should be in a rotation with ZAR at 4th line LW. He's an average at best 4th liner but knows his role.

However, there will be a time in the playoffs when the Leafs get embarrassed (happens to all teams) and they will need a physical response for a game. In that case you can ice both and it won't hurt you as much as Simmonds/Clifford would.

I wonder what the upcharge is in getting a 4th liner like Dryden Hunt, but in a 6'3" plus, 210 pound plus body type. If you're going to get a guy to disrupt the other team, you'd think there'd be a little extra value in making sure those hits hurt a little more. That incremental little advantage.