Toggle sidebar

GDT: Trades & Free Agency Thread - Off-Season Early Edition

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
bossram said:
The narrative before was Dubas had built too soft a team, but now he's finally "got it".

Yet somehow, once again, the major failing of the team is "toughness". It's just bizarre.

I don't mean to directly attribute this to you, but I don't understand how people are ascribing toughness as the critical flaw of the Leafs.
Click to expand...
Did you even watch the playoffs after the Leafs were eliminated? Therein lies the answer…….
 
  • Like
Reactions: myleafs
ShameOnYouZidlicky said:
They can't score in the playoffs because they are a perimeter team who dont play a playoff-style game. I think most people realize that icing a tough team isnt going to win you series these days. But you need a team who can play a more grinding, cycling and netfront game. The Leafs simply dont play this way and is why they have not won a series during this current era
Click to expand...

I appreciate this reply. This is an actual diagnosis of the issue, does some analysis, and presents a solution.

The Leafs probably do need some more players who are better on the cycle and can score on net-front chances (i.e. rebounds, deflections, jam plays). Hyman did this but did not have elite finishing. And ironically, Nylander is the best Leaf in-tight.

This makes a lot more sense than half the posters saying "Akshually, the Leafs aren't tough enough," or "No, it's not that they're soft, it's that they don't play hard". These kinds of statements make no sense and don't address anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meefer and Smif
Funnily enough it's not as if most the Habs goals were the result of them driving and grinding their way through traffic to the net, many of their game winners that series were the end result of errors by the Leafs (ie Gally in overtime in game 5)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smif
rumman said:
Did you even watch the playoffs after the Leafs were eliminated? Therein lies the answer…….
Click to expand...

I probably watched a lot more games than you, honestly.

The final four teams were where they were because they're deep and talented. Tampa probably has the conventionally "softest" and smallest forward corps in the league. Vegas had big forwards but they're not bruisers by reputation. Same with NYI. When you've got fringe first line talents on the 3rd line (like Tampa did with Gourde and Coleman), yeah, you're a good team.

You haven't really offered any criticism of substance.
 
cookie said:
Haven't seen a ton of Tatar talk (then again, I'm using hfboards' search function). Great buy-low option to round out the lineup as a legit PP threat.
Click to expand...

His upcoming contract is going to be interesting: scratched (probably wrongly) for most of the playoffs, but still put up 30pts in 50GP this year (49pts in 82GP season) and had 61pts in 68GP the year before. Do teams put more weight into the former or the latter? If it is the former, then we definitely should scoop him up at a discount. He's not a core piece as the Habs have been using him, and he's got a reputation of struggling in the playoffs, but beggars can't be choosers. With our cap issues, a 50-point winger on a discount contact would be a fantastic add.
 
I'd be watching what happens with Mike Hoffman in free agency. He received 4m last summer and that would be a good number for this team. A great option for depth scoring. Probably don't get him, but that would be the #1 target if he can stay at 4m
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25
Roland Mckeown is a group 6 UFA, would be a decent pick up on a 1 way multi year deal near league min to try and sneak through waivers/ compete for the bottom pair. Depending on Chenowyths opinion could be a darkhorse for an opening day roster spot
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Podium
bossram said:
I probably watched a lot more games than you, honestly.

The final four teams were where they were because they're deep and talented. Tampa probably has the conventionally "softest" and smallest forward corps in the league. Vegas had big forwards but they're not bruisers by reputation. Same with NYI. When you've got fringe first line talents on the 3rd line (like Tampa did with Gourde and Coleman), yeah, you're a good team.

You haven't really offered any criticism of substance.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Leafs were anywhere near being tough enough…..they don’t compete hard enough….and imo they don’t care about winning enough. That’s why they can’t succeed. That and paying half your cap to 4 players won’t ever work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25 and myleafs
CapspaceKiller said:
I'd be watching what happens with Mike Hoffman in free agency. He received 4m last summer and that would be a good number for this team. A great option for depth scoring. Probably don't get him, but that would be the #1 target if he can stay at 4m
Click to expand...
Another guy with questionable off ice problems, I don’t know if that’s behind him, but this team needs good players with good character.
 
Take 1- D to expansion, trades not allowed

Hakanpaa 1.2m (or Demers)
Galchenyuk 1.5m
Goodrow 2m
Hutton 800k
Rittich 1.625

xxx -Matthews-Marner
Gally-Taveres-Matthews
Goodrow-Kerfoot-Soup
Engvall-Spezza-Simmonds
Brooks

Rielly-Brodie
Muzzin-Holl/Dermott
Sandin-Hakanpaa
Hutton

Camp/Rittich

4m 1LW if they pick Holl, 3.5m 1LW if the pick Dermott, 200k for injuries/deadline.
 
Menzinger said:
Funnily enough it's not as if most the Habs goals were the result of them driving and grinding their way through traffic to the net, many of their game winners that series were the end result of errors by the Leafs (ie Gally in overtime in game 5)
Click to expand...
Did Gally made an unforced error or it was pressure from the Habs players? It is not just Gally but the whole Leafs.
The soft part is not being out hits but more to do with being hard to play against. Even when they were winning, I commented that the team is not scoring garbage goals or generating garbage chances by driving to the net. Also, the boys rarely pushed back. All it takes is a little hook, a little push, and even a little shove to let the opposing team feel the pressure. This team lack that and the sad part is, nomatter who they bring in, they will all end up playing soft at the end.
 
rumman said:
I don’t think the Leafs were anywhere near being tough enough…..they don’t compete hard enough….and imo they don’t care about winning enough. That’s why they can’t succeed. That and paying half your cap to 4 players won’t ever work.
Click to expand...

I do think paying half the cap to 4 players can work, I just don’t think these 4 players are good enough to get half the cap…
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25, 40BayStreet and rumman
Cappuccino said:
I do think paying half the cap to 4 players can work, I just don’t think these 4 players are good enough to get half the cap…
Click to expand...

It's a flawed strategy for any team, regardless of the calibre of the top 4 players. There's a reason why no other club in the history of the cap era has tried that approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumman
Bruins signed Carlo at $4.1 million per over 6 years...24 years old...while we have a 32 year old Muzzin for $5.6 million per for 4 years...must be nice...:sarcasm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25 and rumman
Clark4Ever said:
It's a flawed strategy for any team, regardless of the calibre of the top 4 players. There's a reason why no other club in the history of the cap era has tried that approach.
Click to expand...

If I would have MacKinnon, McDavid, Kucherov and Hedman or Pietrangelo, I would be willing to roll the dice… they would probably even be cheaper than “our 4”…
 
  • Like
Reactions: myleafs
Clark4Ever said:
It's a flawed strategy for any team, regardless of the calibre of the top 4 players. There's a reason why no other club in the history of the cap era has tried that approach.
Click to expand...

Many teams have tried that approach, not with only forwards but many teams have had 4 players take up half the cap. They have also won cups.
 
Last edited:
Cappuccino said:
If I would have MacKinnon, McDavid, Kucherov and Hedman or Pietrangelo, I would be willing to roll the dice… they would probably even be cheaper than “our 4”…
Click to expand...
I still don’t think it works, it takes a team of fully committed players to win the cup, not 4 stars surrounded by fringe wannabes and has beens. I hope this is the last year of the experiment because it won’t work.
 
The Podium said:
Many teams have tried that approach, not with only forwards but many teams have had 4 players take up half the cap. They have also won cups.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any team allocating half of their cap space to 4 players prior to the Leafs. Perhaps a few teams came relatively close, but not half.

Moreover, to employ that strategy with just forwards is even more detrimental to a team's success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25
Clark4Ever said:
It's a flawed strategy for any team, regardless of the calibre of the top 4 players. There's a reason why no other club in the history of the cap era has tried that approach.
Click to expand...
If the four are Vas, Hedman/Pietra, McDavid and Kuch.
Thats more balance than having FOUR forwards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom