Would You Guarantee Dubas' Job For 2022-23 If It Meant Holding On To Our Futures?

[Buds17]

Dubas should only be in good standing if the team is itself in a good place (in the standings).

 

[hotpaws]

And he will be if it doesn't work next year.

It's not a question of want, it's a question of willing. They all wanted to them to take team friendly deals. Shanny and Dubas believed that they were the future and worth going out of grid to keep long term. 100% of Lou's history says that he would have told them to piss up a rope and either strong armed them into bridges or traded them.

why next year as opposed to this year or in 2 yrs ? perpetually kicking the can down the road isn't a recipe for success

What history does Lou have of trading elite talent coming off there elc's ? and when did signing players to bridge deals become such a bad move ? but i guess giving out way above market deals like Dubie did on non max term is the way to go

 

[Dreakmur]

1. There's nothing to support that.

I listed the teams for you. That was the evidence.

Weird that you can perfectly project the futures of all our prospects, but can't see good teams and bad teams when they're right in front of you.

2. Even if it was true, that's more a statement on our normal division's strength.

That's exactly what it is. Our normal division is very good... which is why a slightly improved point pace this year isn't really an improvement.

3. We play more than just our division in a "normal" year.

Yes we do.

Where does Edmonton fit into the league depth chart? Maybe 11th or 2th. Winnipeg is 14th or 15th. The best teams we played this year weren't even top 10 teams. Normally we'd play like 20-25 games against top 10 teams.

Sure, we didn't play Buffalo, but Vancouver, Calgary, and Ottawa were all bottom 10 teams.

 

[hotpaws]

I listed the teams for you. That was the evidence.

Weird that you can perfectly project the futures of all our prospects, but can't see good teams and bad teams when they're right in front of you.



That's exactly what it is. Our normal division is very good... which is why a slightly improved point pace this year isn't really an improvement.



Yes we do.

Where does Edmonton fit into the league depth chart? Maybe 11th or 2th. Winnipeg is 14th or 15th. The best teams we played this year weren't even top 10 teams. Normally we'd play like 20-25 games against top 10 teams.

Sure, we didn't play Buffalo, but Vancouver, Calgary, and Ottawa were all bottom 10 teams.

and so were Mon last season

 

[Garthinater]

Because his agent's 2nd on the negotiation was McDavid's primary (same agency) and he knew that McDavid left money on the table. Big goal scoring american born 1st overall pick 1C that wasn't happy. He decided to go for the jugular, we decided he was worth paying. A player of far lesser stature holding out for 500k doesn't move the needle.

Time of signing:

Career high of 63 points

2 points in his last 7 PO games.

Dubas had all the leverage but let auston and his agent dictate terms.

Short term, lots of signing bonus', front loaded, high aav, etc. What did matthews concede? Absolutely nothing.

Dubas messed that signing up badly which influenced mitch's deal. No way marner gets 10.9 x 6 without that matthews deal.

 

[Stephen]

Neither are true. The future is irrelevant when discussing the quality of our prospect pool in the present. Dubas didn't count on changes to the cap any more than any other GM throughout the cap era.

On a message board branded as Hockey’s Future, where we talk about the ability of prospects to play the game, I would say “the future” is quite relevant.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I listed the teams for you. That was the evidence.

That's not evidence of your claim. That's just listing teams, which is really quite meaningless.

Weird that you can perfectly project the futures of all our prospects, but can't see good teams and bad teams when they're right in front of you.

I can see good and bad teams. I can also see when somebody is making baseless claims. I never said that I could perfectly project the future of all of our prospects. Don't misrepresent people. The issue here is that you're attempting to ignore that prospects and prospect pools can be evaluated in the present.

 

[Dekes For Days]

On a message board branded as Hockey’s Future, where we talk about the ability of prospects to play the game, I would say “the future” is quite relevant.

Not to the discussion that was being had. Your statement actually supports my point - one would think that on a message board that's part of a site designed around evaluating prospects and prospects pools in the present, you wouldn't have this pushback to the basic fact that prospects and prospect pools can be evaluated in the present.

 

[socko]

one of the things I hate about Dubas is he comes across as such a arrogant person. If you want to act like you know everything prove it, yet here we are having the same discussions from the previous two years with zero improvement. Pathetic........

That look on Dubas's face was almost worth the first round collapse.

 

[Dreakmur]

That's not evidence of your claim. That's just listing teams, which is really quite meaningless.

Listing the good teams that we normally play is very meaningful.

Normally we play about 1/3 of our schedule against top-10, middle-10, and bottom-10 teams each. This year we played 1/2 against middle-10 and bottom-10 teams each.

I can see good and bad teams.

Apparently not...

I can also see when somebody is making baseless claims.

Hmm, I would have bet that you didn't own a mirror.

Boom, roasted.

I never said that I could perfectly project the future of all of our prospects. Don't misrepresent people.

You said that this current pool is definitely better than the ones that included Stajan, Wellwood, Pogge, Colaiacovo, White, Bell, Harrison, Finn, Percy, Tlusty, etc, etc.

Of course, you never said why you thought that, but you still said you had a reason that you knew they were better.

The issue here is that you're attempting to ignore that prospects and prospect pools can be evaluated in the present.

Yes, they can be evaluated in the present. Our past pools were thought to be good - likely better than our current pool.

You can't say a group that included like 1/3 of Team Canada's U18 roster wasn't supposed to be good.

 

[Stephen]

Not to the discussion that was being had. Your statement actually supports my point - one would think that on a message board that's part of a site designed around evaluating prospects and prospects pools in the present, you wouldn't have this pushback to the idea that prospects and prospect pools can be evaluated in the present.

The strength of a prospect pool is based on a projection of what they’re likely to do in the future. But a prospect pool of 18/20 year olds will look more flattering when compared with all the busts who didn’t make it from a few years previously.

Also doesn’t factor in the reality that the Leafs farm system ranked very highly a few seasons ago before the top layer of Kapanen, Johnsson, Dermott, Engvall got their full time promotions and Liljegren and Grundstrom were newly drafted to go along with all the guys like Bracco, Timashov, Sparks etc who eventually busted.

 

[Dreakmur]

The strength of a prospect pool is based on a projection of what they’re likely to do in the future. But a prospect pool of 18/20 year olds will look more flattering when compared with all the busts who didn’t make it from a few years previously.

Also doesn’t factor in the reality that the Leafs farm system ranked very highly a few seasons ago before the top layer of Kapanen, Johnsson, Dermott, Engvall got their full time promotions and Liljegren and Grundstrom were newly drafted to go along with all the guys like Bracco, Timashov, Sparks etc who eventually busted.

Exactly.

Guys like Hirvonen, Abruzzese, and Miettinen are very unlikely to make the roster... but they haven't flopped yet, so we all hope they'll make it !

 

[Dekes For Days]

This year we played 1/2 against middle-10 and bottom-10 teams each.

That's not true. We played twice as many against teams in the middle-10 as we did against bottom-10, and didn't play a single game against any of the bottom-7 teams. But again, it's really all meaningless because you're still not getting what entirely in-division schedules means.

You said that this current pool is definitely better

Yes, our current prospect pool is healthier than the earlier prospect pools you referenced.

Yes, they can be evaluated in the present.

Progress.

Our past pools were thought to be good - likely better than our current pool.

No, they weren't.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The strength of a prospect pool is based on a projection of what they’re likely to do in the future. But a prospect pool of 18/20 year olds will look more flattering when compared with all the busts who didn’t make it from a few years previously.

We're not comparing a prospect pool to busts. We're comparing a prospect pool at this point in time, to a prospect pool at a different point in time.

 

[Dreakmur]

That's not true. We played twice as many against teams in the middle-10 as we did against bottom-10, and didn't play a single game against any of the bottom-7 teams. But again, it's really all meaningless because you're still not getting what entirely in-division schedules means.

If you're just looking at the league-wide standings, that's you're mistake. Vancouver, Calgary, and Ottawa are all bottom-10 teams, even if Calgary was technically 1 point above 10th worst.

Yes, our current prospect pool is healthier than the earlier prospect pools you referenced.

Only because you're looking at the past pools with the benefit of hindsight.

Progress.

That evaluation is still based on hope.

No, they weren't.

From the 2001 WJC - Jay Harrison and Brad Boyes
From the 2002 WJC - Jay Harrison and Brad Boyes again, along with Carlo Colaiacovo.
From the 2003 WJC - Carlo Colaiacovo again, along with Matt Stajan, Kyle Wellwood, Ian White, and Brendan Bell.

It is not common for players to be good enough to play for Canada as under-agers. We had 3 in 2 years.

That's a really impressive pool, and doesn't even consider the non-Canadians, which included guys like Alex Steen, Karel Pilar, Mikael Telqvist.

I'm sure we'll look back in 10 years and laugh about how we thought Hirvonen, Miettinen, and Amirov were thought of so highly.... and we'll look at our 2030 prospect pool and think it's way better than the old one!!!

 

[Stephen]

We're not comparing a prospect pool to busts. We're comparing a prospect pool at this point in time, to a prospect pool at a different point in time.

So at the conclusion of the 2017 NHL Draft, the last one before Dubas took over, the Leafs were actually ranked pretty high with guys who hadn't been promoted to full time status:

Ranking the Top 10 NHL Prospect Pools After the 2017 Draft

At the conclusion of the 2020 draft, they're ranked much lower. Even if you factor in all the promising growth that has happened in the past year, they're not jumping 10+ spots in the standings.

NHL Farm System Rankings: Which Team Has the Best Group of Prospects?

 

[Mugzy97]

The team he built failed therefore he failed. don't be a Dubas ass kisser

Still a couple of years to succeed

 

[Mugzy97]

Well since no other team even has 2 players at 11 milly who are all these gms with a brain you are talking about?

No other team has a Matthews and a Marner

 

[Mugzy97]

Right, all the other gms got a message from WHO saying that a pandemic was coming but somehow dubas missed the call.

Very good argument mugzy

Just bad timing with the contracts expiring just before a league expansion but also just before a global pandemic.

 

[keonsbitterness]

Yes, our current prospect pool is healthier than the earlier prospect pools you referenced.

Healthier? Does a team of doctors evaluate that?

 

[myleafs]

No other team has a Matthews and a Marner

You said anyone with a brain would sign all 3.....but would they sign all 3 for 11 million? Because nobody has done that. Not even 2 at that cost. Your implying that our 3 guys are so much better than any other teams top 3 guys that we had to pay them all top of the league dollar, because no other team has 3 players that match up to the quality of our 3 players?

 

[supermann_98]

He has good hair, his glasses stand out and typically he is rocking a great sweater.... what is there not to like?

Not only that, but he's considerate enough to answer each question from a reporter by answering them by name in his response. For those egomaniacs in the media that's all they need to give him a pass

 

[4thline]

No way marner gets 10.9 x 6 without that matthews deal.

He shouldn't have gotten 10.9x6 even with the Matthews deal

 

[myleafs]

I think my thing with Dubas, and really in general, is where does the responsibility and accountability lie.

It is easy for people to say the fire the GM or fire the coach or make these moves. Sometimes it makes sense, and others it doesn't. I think eventually there gets to the point where Dubas does his job extremely well and still gets ousted just to make a change, but I don't think that happens after 3 years. Not unless he starts being an active problem by making terrible moves, etc.

When I am evaluating Dubas, I look at where the team should be based on what he built. Ultimately, he can't guarantee success. No GM can. He can only give them the best possible chance to win and I don't think there is any doubt in most people's minds that the Leafs should have been able to make it out of the 1st round in at least the past 2, if not the past 3, years we've made the playoffs and likely make a fairly deep run. Maybe it is only a hard fought second round exit or CF exit, and not a Stanley Cup, but we've seen worse teams make it farther than we have.

So I look at Dubas and see that most things have gone fairly well for him. If there was a weakness (top 4 defense, getting some better depth, etc.), he was fairly quick and effective in addressing it. He's taken some risks that have not always panned out (i.e. Sparks), and some more recent moves (i.e. Foligno and signing Thornton) were a little bit of a head scratcher for me, but I can point out any top GM in the league and say the exact same thing. And his replacement will almost certainly not be any different in that regard.

My main concern is that you can do a lot worse than Dubas and likely not significantly better, and even if you do better, there is still no more of a guarantee that the Leafs make it out of the 1st round... And meanwhile we see Dubas go to another team and win a Cup or make the CF two years in a row and hear people are saying "that is what would have happened to us if we kept Dubas".

Eventually, the guys on the ice need to perform and we've seen some guys really step up (Matthews, Nylander, etc.) and others who really have not (Marner, our goalies on occasion, a bunch of guys that Dubas quickly dumped when it clearly was not going to work out for them, etc.)

I agree with some of this but then I watch the playoffs and I can't help but think we don't have a chance in hell of doing any damage. IMO The leafs do not play anywhere close to the intense sacrificing style needed. Every other team looks dialed in and ready for war, against the other team and for each other. I do not see that with this group, like at all. We have some skilled guys who can get us to the dance but once there, I am not convinced the nice guy passive culture and style of the team can succeed.

 

[4thline]

why next year as opposed to this year or in 2 yrs ? perpetually kicking the can down the road isn't a recipe for success

What history does Lou have of trading elite talent coming off there elc's ? and when did signing players to bridge deals become such a bad move ? but i guess giving out way above market deals like Dubie did on non max term is the way to go

No history of trading them, 100% history of giving a sequence of highish value bridges then seeing them leave at UFA time