Trades and Free Agent Talk - To trade or not to trade...

[Joel Ward]

What if we try

Matthews - Tavares - Marner
Johnsson - Nylander - Kapanen
Micheyev - Kerfoot - Hyman
Tymashov - Goat - Moore

I've thought about this also but I don't think Babcock is comfortable with Nylander at C and I'm not sure Kerfoot is suited to play on a checking line.

 

[Rare Jewel]

I went straight to the trades, skipped GO, and Skipped the firing Babcock bits. I'm ambivalent. Fire him, don't fire him... don't care.

I'd give the players a few more games, but not too much...From what I've seen, the players just haven't been working hard enough, or perhaps not executing well enough at times, particularly our big money guys. I'm not in the room, or the building to know what the problem is. Easy to sit behind my screen and say Babcock has lost them... but how do I know, or you know? Surely Dubas and Shanahan have a pretty good feel as to what is going on, and surely they've talked to Babcock. Ultimately it's Babcock's job to get these guys to perform, and win, and if he can't, next.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Players need to perform, but he needs to get the most from them.

See I think though it falls more on the players in this case and my worry is that they would have way too much power if they can with their lack of performance oust a quite successful coach, what ever some may think of him. A lot of accountability on the players is lost if they fire him in season IMO.

It would show a real lack of nerve and over sensitivity on managements part they fire him after now IMO.


Just a theory that was largely developed over the last few games, but Babcock lost two of his trusted vets last season in Hainsey and Marleau, normally I wouldn't put it down to an intangible like this, but I do wonder if it could be part of it at least. Three of the most effected/underperforming players are ones that were the most linked to those guys in Matthews, Marner and Rielly. Rielly more for on ice, and Matthews and Marner for off at least optically.

We could argue the on ice merit of Hainsey and Marleau all day, but perhaps the part we didn't see, mainly the way they were very likely the buffer between Babcock and the rest of the group on a day to day basis was what the most valuable asset they had.

 

[Walshy7]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Players need to perform, but he needs to get the most from them.

See I think though it falls more on the players in this case and my worry is that they would have way too much power if they can with their lack of performance oust a quite successful coach, what ever some may think of him. A lot of accountability on the players is lost if they fire him in season IMO.

It would show a real lack of nerve and over sensitivity on managements part they fire him after now IMO.


Just a theory that was largely developed over the last few games, but Babcock lost two of his trusted vets last season in Hainsey and Marleau, normally I wouldn't put it down like an intangible like this, but I do wonder if it could be part of it least. Three of the most effected/underperforming players are ones that were the most linked to those guys in Matthews, Marner and Rielly. Rielly more for on ice, and Matthews and Marner for off at least optically.

We could argue the on ice merit of Hainsey and Marleau all day, but perhaps the part we didn't see, mainly the way they were very likely the buffer between Babcock and the rest of the group on a day to day basis was what the most valuable asset they had.

$6.25M for a guy who contributes less than zero on the ice but gave a buffer to the coach?

nah for $6M per year Babcock can learn how to inspire the younger generation of players thanks, or he can be fired

 

[ACC1224]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Players need to perform, but he needs to get the most from them.

See I think though it falls more on the players in this case and my worry is that they would have way too much power if they can with their lack of performance oust a quite successful coach, what ever some may think of him. A lot of accountability on the players is lost if they fire him in season IMO.

It would show a real lack of nerve and over sensitivity on managements part they fire him after now IMO.


Just a theory that was largely developed over the last few games, but Babcock lost two of his trusted vets last season in Hainsey and Marleau, normally I wouldn't put it down like an intangible like this, but I do wonder if it could be part of it least. Three of the most effected/underperforming players are ones that were the most linked to those guys in Matthews, Marner and Rielly. Rielly more for on ice, and Matthews and Marner for off at least optically.

We could argue the on ice merit of Hainsey and Marleau all day, but perhaps the part we didn't see, mainly the way they were very likely the buffer between Babcock and the rest of the group on a day to day basis was what the most valuable asset they had.

I had thought the same. Good insight.

 

[Rare Jewel]

$6.25M for a guy who contributes less than zero on the ice but gave a buffer to the coach?

nah for $6M per year Babcock can learn how to inspire the younger generation of players thanks, or he can be fired

It's not about specifically Marleau because yes, his play wasn't to the standard of his contract. But it's about filling a certain role. Having older players possibly with a lighter touch than Babcock to aid them.

 

[Fogelhund]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Players need to perform, but he needs to get the most from them.

See I think though it falls more on the players in this case and my worry is that they would have way too much power if they can with their lack of performance oust a quite successful coach, what ever some may think of him. A lot of accountability on the players is lost if they fire him in season IMO.

It would show a real lack of nerve and over sensitivity on managements part they fire him after now IMO.


Just a theory that was largely developed over the last few games, but Babcock lost two of his trusted vets last season in Hainsey and Marleau, normally I wouldn't put it down like an intangible like this, but I do wonder if it could be part of it least. Three of the most effected/underperforming players are ones that were the most linked to those guys in Matthews, Marner and Rielly. Rielly more for on ice, and Matthews and Marner for off at least optically.

We could argue the on ice merit of Hainsey and Marleau all day, but perhaps the part we didn't see, mainly the way they were very likely the buffer between Babcock and the rest of the group on a day to day basis was what the most valuable asset they had.

I don't disagree with most of what you say. At the end of the day, we can't fire all of the players. If they aren't performing, eventually the coaching staff falls on the sword. Deserved or not, that's the way it is.

If guys can't play the game, who are making $11 million.... without a couple of vets... we've got a bigger issue

 

[SeaOfBlue]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Players need to perform, but he needs to get the most from them.

See I think though it falls more on the players in this case and my worry is that they would have way too much power if they can with their lack of performance oust a quite successful coach, what ever some may think of him. A lot of accountability on the players is lost if they fire him in season IMO.

It would show a real lack of nerve and over sensitivity on managements part they fire him after now IMO.


Just a theory that was largely developed over the last few games, but Babcock lost two of his trusted vets last season in Hainsey and Marleau, normally I wouldn't put it down like an intangible like this, but I do wonder if it could be part of it least. Three of the most effected/underperforming players are ones that were the most linked to those guys in Matthews, Marner and Rielly. Rielly more for on ice, and Matthews and Marner for off at least optically.

We could argue the on ice merit of Hainsey and Marleau all day, but perhaps the part we didn't see, mainly the way they were very likely the buffer between Babcock and the rest of the group on a day to day basis was what the most valuable asset they had.

The Leafs did add Spezza, and I would expect that Matthews, Marner, and especially Rielly know what it is like to be a professional hockey player by now. Otherwise they shouldn't be getting paid like one. They've been in the league for 3+ years, many of which was with vets such as Hainsey, Marleau, Tavares, etc. They should know the amount and type of work they need to put in because if not, then Babcock, Hainsey, Tavares, Marleau, etc. have sucked at being leaders and they must have the steepest learning curves I have ever seen.

I'm not even worried about Matthews or Rielly at this point. Rielly has been inconsistent, but he's still getting used to Ceci and playing 25 minutes a night (which is 2-3 minutes more than he's used to). Considering he's still been a net positive player in a #1 role and should only get better as the season progresses, I would not worry about Rielly's play at this point. Same with Matthews. Sure he's had a couple of poor games since Tavares went down, but he's also taken over games on his own this year too. There are more times when he looks like someone worth his money than not, but he still needs to take it to that next level.

Marner remains my biggest worry. Outside of a few strong shifts, I don't think he's come close to looking like even a 9 million dollar player, never mind an almost 11 million dollar player. Sure he's racking up empty points, but he has not had a game which I would have called "good"... Maybe there was 1 or 2. And I really don't think it's a coincidence that Matthews started to do worse as soon as Marner started playing with him. The guy's game is built on playmaking and hustle, but right now, he does not have a consistent handle on either. To me, Nylander has been the better player all year. Even when Nylander was playing with lesser players, he's still making great plays without a ton of mistakes. Still wouldn't mind if he was a little bit more aggressive though.

 

[Rare Jewel]

I had thought the same. Good insight.

Whether anything happens in that regard remains to be seen. What's Justin Williams up to these days?

 

[Walshy7]

It's not about specifically Marleau because yes, his play wasn't to the standard of his contract. But it's about filling a certain role. Having older players possibly with a lighter touch than Babcock to aid them.

well then babcock definitely isn't the right coach for us, if he cant coach, motivate and inspire younger players when our core is predominantly younger players. Marner 22, Matthews 22, Nylander 23 and Rielly 25. So JT and Andersen are the only older core playser we have. Even our depth, the real depth 3rd liners etc ar in the 21-24 age bracket. I babcock needs an older player on the roster to get through to these guys how do we afford them? league minimum vet players aren't going to be too concerned with the younger players they are thinking what about my next contract in most cases. So it needs to be an older leader type worth a decent cap hit we cant afford that and nor should we make space for that because our coach cant relate to youth of today

 

[HoweHullOrr]

ho-sang for petan

If Ho-Sang has finally seen the light and says he is willing to do whatever it takes, why not flip Petan for him? Petan has no future here so what do you have to lose ??

Not sure how we'd be able to keep the player (in this case Ho-Sang) given that we need to cut at least 4 players who's total value needs to exceed $3 m and change.

I think the focus is on what players to cut, versus which ones to add given cap constraints.

 

[Kiwi]

It's not about specifically Marleau because yes, his play wasn't to the standard of his contract. But it's about filling a certain role. Having older players possibly with a lighter touch than Babcock to aid them.

I honestly don't care

We're paying our young talent premiums contractually to drive play and when were paying 2 guys around 11M there are no excuses around things like "veteran leadership" because there contract demands made niceties like that impossible with our cap situation

I'd fire Babcock because I think this team is stagnating and he's shown zero ability to sort it out but I'm even more pissed off with the young players on this team for there inability to take responsibility for there play and mental fragility

 

[ACC1224]

Whether anything happens in that regard remains to be seen. What's Justin Williams up to these days?

Probably hoping Spezza could deliver some of that.

 

[Rare Jewel]

I honestly don't care

We're paying our young talent premiums contractually to drive play and when were paying 2 guys around 11M there are no excuses around things like "veteran leadership" because there contract demands made niceties like that impossible with our cap situation

I'd fire Babcock because I think this team is stagnating and he's shown zero ability to sort it out but I'm even more pissed off with the young players on this team for there inability to take responsibility for there play and mental fragility

But how does he progress a team that doesn't take responsibility as you say?

So I wouldn't offer it as an excuse, but more as a compromise. We often used to compare our rebuild with Chicago's, often citing the Toews/Matthews or the Kane/Marner or even Keith/Rielly as their comparable. What we didn't nearly spend as much time talking about are the vets or experienced players around them, outside of Hossa perhaps. But there's a whole cast of players on all three of their cup teams that don't get mentioned that I'm sure if you asked, they were very important to the make up of those teams. That's not exclusive to Chicago either, Pittsburgh and Washington as well. But it's the type of player I don't quite see in abundance on our team right now.

I'm much more on the side of " these players need to get it going", because I agree with you. At the end of it, series and cups will be won or loss on the back of the core. But I think it would be kind of ignorant to dismiss all the facets of what it could take to build a championship team.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Not sure how we'd be able to keep the player (in this case Ho-Sang) given that we need to cut at least 4 players who's total value needs to exceed $3 m and change.

I think the focus is on what players to cut, versus which ones to add given cap constraints.

Ho-Sang would be in the AHL even if we could afford to keep him. He's not an NHL player at this point.

He has already cleared waivers so it is not a concern.

 

[Bigmarycombo]

Babcock has to go period!

Don’t have to look any farther than Columbus
Overtime game

Petan has been a fourth liner all year and he starts the overtime!

Babcock should be done before another year is wasted.

 

[Kiwi]

But how does he progress a team that doesn't take responsibility as you say?

So I wouldn't offer it as an excuse, but more as a compromise. We often used to compare our rebuild with Chicago's, often citing the Toews/Matthews or the Kane/Marner or even Keith/Rielly as their comparable. What we didn't nearly spend as much time talking about are the vets or experienced players around them, outside of Hossa perhaps. But there's a whole cast of players on all three of their cup teams that don't get mentioned that I'm sure if you asked, they were very important to the make up of those teams. That's not exclusive to Chicago either, Pittsburgh and Washington as well. But it's the type of player I don't quite see in abundance on our team right now.

I'm much more on the side of " these players need to get it going", because I agree with you. At the end of it, series and cups will be won or loss on the back of the core. But I think it would be kind of ignorant to dismiss all the facets of what it could take to build championship team.

Thanks to our GM'S inability to hold the line and our young players greed we cannot add good experienced players around the core because our cap situation makes that impossible (I don't blame Babcock for that by the way)

This is by no means all Babcock's fault (I think he's a very good coach in the right situation) but he's the easiest person to fire and the status quo cannot continue

If another coach can't make this team perform then its time for upper management and the players to start leaving town behind him so we can bring in people that are going to perform

 

[Rare Jewel]

Thanks to our GM'S inability to hold the line and our young players greed we cannot add good experienced players around the core because our cap situation makes that impossible (I don't blame Babcock for that by the way)

This is by no means all Babcock's fault (I think he's a very good coach in the right situation) but he's the easiest person to fire and the status quo cannot continue

If another coach can't make this team perform then its time for upper management and the players to start leaving town behind him so we can bring in people that are going to perform

You're right, but they shouldn't do it because it's easy. Well possibly trying to alleviate some cap space while filling certain positions and roles is what's needed IMO. Easier said than done, but it seems to be what's necessary at the moment.

 

[Gabriel426]

Although this is not a fair comparison bc Q did won 3 Cups and coached the Hawks a lot longer but I doubt any players would say the stuff that stores, Kane and other said about Q if Babs is canned from the Leafs. At least from the interviews, collectively the Hawks players were sad and piss about themselves not doing more to help Q. I just don’t see the same from our players about Babs.

 

[MyBudJT]

well then babcock definitely isn't the right coach for us, if he cant coach, motivate and inspire younger players when our core is predominantly younger players. Marner 22, Matthews 22, Nylander 23 and Rielly 25. So JT and Andersen are the only older core playser we have. Even our depth, the real depth 3rd liners etc ar in the 21-24 age bracket. I babcock needs an older player on the roster to get through to these guys how do we afford them? league minimum vet players aren't going to be too concerned with the younger players they are thinking what about my next contract in most cases. So it needs to be an older leader type worth a decent cap hit we cant afford that and nor should we make space for that because our coach cant relate to youth of today

Are you using a 11 game sample to suggest that Babcock can't motivate our young players?

Did I not watch Rielly score 73, Marner score 94 points last season? Matthews could have been up there too if he wasn't injured.

Guys like Mikheyev, Kapanen, Johnsson, Kerfoot, Moore, Timashov are all playing well....

I think the issue isn't Babcock's ability to motivate young players... its our young players that need to learn to put in a consistently strong effort, every single night.

 

[Rare Jewel]

Although this is not a fair comparison bc Q did won 3 Cups and coached the Hawks a lot longer but I doubt any players would say the stuff that stores, Kane and other said about Q if Babs is canned from the Leafs. At least from the interviews, collectively the Hawks players were sad and piss about themselves not doing more to help Q. I just don’t see the same from our players about Babs.

I guess it would depend on who was asked here.

Rielly and Tavares seem like they're pretty big backers of Babcock. Not sure about Matthews or Marner.

 

[rumman]

The Leafs did add Spezza, and I would expect that Matthews, Marner, and especially Rielly know what it is like to be a professional hockey player by now. Otherwise they shouldn't be getting paid like one. They've been in the league for 3+ years, many of which was with vets such as Hainsey, Marleau, Tavares, etc. They should know the amount and type of work they need to put in because if not, then Babcock, Hainsey, Tavares, Marleau, etc. have sucked at being leaders and they must have the steepest learning curves I have ever seen.

I'm not even worried about Matthews or Rielly at this point. Rielly has been inconsistent, but he's still getting used to Ceci and playing 25 minutes a night (which is 2-3 minutes more than he's used to). Considering he's still been a net positive player in a #1 role and should only get better as the season progresses, I would not worry about Rielly's play at this point. Same with Matthews. Sure he's had a couple of poor games since Tavares went down, but he's also taken over games on his own this year too. There are more times when he looks like someone worth his money than not, but he still needs to take it to that next level.

Marner remains my biggest worry. Outside of a few strong shifts, I don't think he's come close to looking like even a 9 million dollar player, never mind an almost 11 million dollar player. Sure he's racking up empty points, but he has not had a game which I would have called "good"... Maybe there was 1 or 2. And I really don't think it's a coincidence that Matthews started to do worse as soon as Marner started playing with him. The guy's game is built on playmaking and hustle, but right now, he does not have a consistent handle on either. To me, Nylander has been the better player all year. Even when Nylander was playing with lesser players, he's still making great plays without a ton of mistakes. Still wouldn't mind if he was a little bit more aggressive though.

I get your logic, these guys aren't rookies anymore, but I think age diversity is a good thing. Having gone through a trades apprenticeship I wasn't the only one of my peers to note that even after we all became journeymen and the old guys who essentially trained us retired we all missed the the old guard. Yes they didn't see things like we did, shook their heads at some of our ideas, were more set in their ways, but they had a ton of knowledge and just having different views within the crew was a good thing and like I said was sorely missed once they were gone.

 

[Kiwi]

You're right, but they shouldn't do it because it's easy. Alleviating cap space, while filling certain positions and roles is what's needed IMO. Easier said than done, but it seems to be what necessary at the moment.

It's going to cost a crap ton of money so I wouldn't call firing him easy, just the most obvious decision in this situation

Before you start trading young guys on good value contracts it's beholden on management to look at the team with a new coach beforehand

If the team has really tuned him out trading guys on the periphery like Kapanen or Johnsson isn't going to make guys like Matthews and Marner feel any different about Babs and that are the ones were relying on to drive the team forward

 

[Rare Jewel]

It's going to cost a crap ton of money so I wouldn't call firing him easy, just the most obvious decision in this situation

Before you start trading young guys on good value contracts it's beholden on management to look at the team with a new coach beforehand

If the team has really tuned him out trading guys on the periphery like Kapanen or Johnsson isn't going to make guys like Matthews and Marner feel any different about Babs and that are the ones were relying on to drive the team forward

The money is not an issue.

As for a trade, it depends who and for what. I'm not saying move one of Johnnson or Kapanen for the sake of it. Although, you've got to give to get in most cases. So it may well have to be one of them.

I still look at Ceci as way to possibly get some space if needed.

 

[Gabriel426]

Watch a Nucks deal with AJ and Ceci leaving for Stretcher and Ferland coming back

 

[kb]

It's not about specifically Marleau because yes, his play wasn't to the standard of his contract. But it's about filling a certain role. Having older players possibly with a lighter touch than Babcock to aid them.

Sadly, I think Marleau's efforts were limited to "Get as much as you can, your career is too short to leave money on the table for any reason."

His lack of a championship, and being stripped of the captaincy kinda suggest all was not right there, and perhaps he didn't really care about winning..