Toggle sidebar

Trades and Free Agency - 2022 Off-season

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
First thing I noticed was:

Bunting-Matthews-Marner 65%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander 52.8%

Bunting-Matthews-Nylander 58.5%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner 53.1%

Swapping Marner and Nylander made a marginal improvement to the Tavares line (52.8 to 53.1) but a much larger dropoff to the Matthews line (65 to 58.5).

I think it's time to shelve the idea of dropping Marner to the second line 'to get Tavares going'.
 
jaric1862 said:
He would’ve fit the fourth line so perfectly. Would much rather him there than Gaudette.
Click to expand...

Seems like a moot point when Gaudette should not be there either.

Larsson would have fit in the same way that a ZAR or Motte would have fit, and the latter two are still out there.
 
Jamason said:
First thing I noticed was:

Bunting-Matthews-Marner 65%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander 52.8%

Bunting-Matthews-Nylander 58.5%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner 53.1%

Swapping Marner and Nylander made a marginal improvement to the Tavares line (52.8 to 53.1) but a much larger dropoff to the Matthews line (65 to 58.5).

I think it's time to shelve the idea of dropping Marner to the second line 'to get Tavares going'.
Click to expand...

Same issue as with Babcock, it's not about making Tavares-Marner a permanent fixture but how willing you are to make that switch in-game in response to how the other team is playing. It shouldn't be one or the other 100% of the time, it's a question of flexibility in response to teams stacking a defensive unit against the first line.

Sometimes Matthews-grinder, Tavares-Marner, Kerfoot-Nylander is the right call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seath The Scaleless, notDatsyuk, andora and 1 other person
Fogelhund said:
Great no. Good, but that's about it. No better offensively than Bunting/Matthews/Marner, but quite a bit worse defensively.
Click to expand...

The issue is JT and willy have issues meshing on occasion so it's a net positive because both lines end up strong instead of one all time great one and one that is streaky
 
Martin Skoula said:
Same issue as with Babcock, it's not about making Tavares-Marner a permanent fixture but how willing you are to make that switch in-game in response to how the other team is playing. It shouldn't be one or the other 100% of the time, it's a question of flexibility in response to teams stacking a defensive unit against the first line.

Sometimes Matthews-grinder, Tavares-Marner, Kerfoot-Nylander is the right call.
Click to expand...

I did think the one really good thing Keefe did in the playoffs was Force feed AM offensive zone starts.
 
rocketman588 said:
The issue is JT and willy have issues meshing on occasion so it's a net positive because both lines end up strong instead of one all time great one and one that is streaky
Click to expand...

On the occasion, as measured by the eye test, but not backed up by stats.

I'm sorry, your position isn't backed by evidence, quite the contrary, and results in a poorer team.

See post #1404
 
  • Like
Reactions: stickty111 and rocketman588
Jamason said:
First thing I noticed was:

Bunting-Matthews-Marner 65%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander 52.8%

Bunting-Matthews-Nylander 58.5%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner 53.1%

Swapping Marner and Nylander made a marginal improvement to the Tavares line (52.8 to 53.1) but a much larger dropoff to the Matthews line (65 to 58.5).

I think it's time to shelve the idea of dropping Marner to the second line 'to get Tavares going'.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. Thanks.

I am one who thinks we should try to MM/JT combo again. Those would be small samples I assume (correct me if I am wrong) and I also don't like Kerfoot in the top 6...so that's a variable too and I THINK I saw some analysis where Kerfoot dragged down the lines he played on (again, correct me if I am wrong). This only works if we raise the JT line and don't lower the AM line too much. Both lines at 60% would be a worthy objective.

Lots of variables....what were the circumstances when we had the combos above? Injuries? Did MM play with JT when AM was out of the line up? Was WN with AM when MM was injured? This would be about balance. What might a month or two of these lines look like with all four of these guys in the lineup?

Does JT and MM perform better when the other team had to be worried about AM on another line...and does AM and WN work better when we can roll out JT/MM next?

Our issue in the playoffs (one of them) has been lack of balance, being a one line team...I still think it is worth a shot, maybe even a prolonged look for some chemistry and balance to develop.

Again, I am not sure but there might be a lot variables behind the stats you posted above.
 
Last edited:
conFABulator said:
That's interesting. Thanks.

I am one who thinks we should try to MM/JT combo again. Those would be small samples I assume (correct me if I am wrong) and I also don't like Kerfoot in the top 6...so that's a variable too and I THINK I saw some analysis where Kerfoot dragged down the lines he played on (again, correct me if I am wrong). This only works if we raise the JT line and don't lower the AM line too much. Both lines at 60% would be a worthy objective.

Lots of variables....what were the circumstances when we had the combos above? Injuries? Did MM play with JT when AM was out of tbe line up? Was WN with AM when MM was injured? This would be about balance. What might a month or two of these lines look like with all four of these guys in the lineup?

Does JT and MM perform better when the other team had to be worried about AM on another line...and does AM and WN work better when we can roll out JT/MM next?

Our issue in tbe playoffs (one of them) has been lack of balance, being a one line team...I still think it is worth a shot, maybe even a prolonged look for some chemistry and balance to develop.

Again, I am not sure but there might be a lot variables behind the stats you posted above.
Click to expand...

His data came from my post #1395. It has all the info, including minutes on ice together. Check that out, you'll find it useful. By data, it looks like we stick with Bunts/Matty/Marner, and the best second line might be Robertson/Tavares/Nylander by stats, with Engvall/Kampf on the third line... though they don't work well with Kerfoot either, who statistically, is the odd man out and should be moved... and I was a Kerfoot supporter, until I looked at the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: notDatsyuk
Everyday I look for a kerfoot trade and everyday I'm disappointed. Hopefully he's moved soon to free up the space for Sandin. I'd look to give every forward at training camp a shot with Nylander and Tavares and hope one works.
 
Fogelhund said:
His data came from my post #1395. It has all the info, including minutes on ice together. Check that out, you'll find it useful. By data, it looks like we stick with Bunts/Matty/Marner, and the best second line might be Robertson/Tavares/Nylander by stats, with Engvall/Kampf on the third line... though they don't work well with Kerfoot either, who statistically, is the odd man out and should be moved... and I was a Kerfoot supporter, until I looked at the data.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will check out the original post.

I agree that Kerfoot is the odd man out. His value is he can do a lot of things for us...but does he do any of them particularly well? At $3.5M we might be better off spreading that across three guys that can provide that depth and flexibility and maybe some elements that Kerfoot doesn't. Rodrigues? ZAR? Even Gagner? Those three might come in at around the same cost as Kerfoot...and if he is not in our top 6 (or 9) it makes a lot of sense to spread it around in favour of more depth and flexibility.
 
The second line should be one of the best in the league. They have easier matchups than the big line. Tavares and nylander do not mesh. They are bad 5v5, bad defensively and are under achieving when they disappear for 25-30 games a year.
 
notdoneyet said:
The second line should be one of the best in the league. They have easier matchups than the big line. Tavares and nylander do not mesh. They are bad 5v5, bad defensively and are under achieving when they disappear for 25-30 games a year.
Click to expand...

Based on what? Please provide the data to support this.
 
Martin Skoula said:
Same issue as with Babcock, it's not about making Tavares-Marner a permanent fixture but how willing you are to make that switch in-game in response to how the other team is playing. It shouldn't be one or the other 100% of the time, it's a question of flexibility in response to teams stacking a defensive unit against the first line.

Sometimes Matthews-grinder, Tavares-Marner, Kerfoot-Nylander is the right call.
Click to expand...
Certainly. I was just addressing the posters who insist that all JT needs to become the great player we hoped he would be is to pair him with Marner full time.
 
I want to see marner - JT - nylander and Bunting-Matthews-Kerfoot

why? Just cus.
 
Some interesting options based off this site . Such as holl to Washington for conor sheary or Garnet Hathaway. Both are signed at 1 year for 1.5 million .

Kerfoot to Minnesota for Frederick Gaudreau who is signed at 1 year 1.2 million . Or to Los Angeles for Trevor Moore at 2 years for 1.875 million . Just several options to fill out the bottom six while lowering our salary cap so we can resign Sandin.

mapleleafshotstove.com

With more moves still likely, how will the Maple Leafs complete their offseason?

The bulk of the NHL offseason is now over, but the Toronto Maple Leafs still have at least one more trade to complete. The team is currently just about at the upper limit of the salary cap with Rasmus Sandin still to sign. There is little doubt that a trade will happen prior to the […]
mapleleafshotstove.com mapleleafshotstove.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minty Cowboy
Jamason said:
First thing I noticed was:

Bunting-Matthews-Marner 65%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander 52.8%

Bunting-Matthews-Nylander 58.5%
Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner 53.1%

Swapping Marner and Nylander made a marginal improvement to the Tavares line (52.8 to 53.1) but a much larger dropoff to the Matthews line (65 to 58.5).

I think it's time to shelve the idea of dropping Marner to the second line 'to get Tavares going'.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but I would say those numbers are not overly meaningful without context as to how often the second set of lines were actually together. If we are talking about this past season specifically then it can’t be much
 
Sypher04 said:
Hmm, I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but I would say those numbers are not overly meaningful without context as to how often the second set of lines were actually together. If we are talking about this past season specifically then it can’t be much
Click to expand...
Go to page 56. All the data is there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sypher04
Havoc said:
hmmm that is the only part where we will have to differ. I am high on Knies and think he will become a top 6 forward at some point, but he doesn't make the cut declining patrick kane. If there's a small list of guys to go all in on, Patrick Kane makes the list. We don't even know what the team will look like when / if that day comes Knies becomes a regular impact player. It could potentially have less odds to win the cup than the odds we have next season.

Knies is good but he's not marner or nylander "won't get in your system for years" level of good. I think emotionally we feel that way but in reality Knies isn't in that tier. Worry about replacing him later. I personally can't turn down Kane because of fear we can't find another prospect in Knies tier. From a building stand point contending with best possible odds to win a cup (matthews marner nylander kane tavares), it doesn't make sense to keep knies if that is who they wanted. We're never going to get odds that high again. Literally ever again. Maybe in the year 3000+

Dubas' draft capital, considering no first round picks or blue chips ending up winning the kane sweep stakes as the finishing touch to this team is an automatic A+ genius drafting.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I'm wary of trading Knies at this stage in particular is that if he indeed breaks out into a goal scoring power forward his raw value skyrockets. Obviously that's not a guarantee to happen either, but I'd opt to be on the cautious side here
 
  • Like
Reactions: deprw
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom