Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
No Avatar image uploaded
Leafs Rumours Member Posts
ShadowfoxDrow's Profile
ShadowfoxDrow's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To ShadowfoxDrow's Posts
To ShadowfoxDrow's last 5 rumours posts
To ShadowfoxDrow's last 5 banter posts
To ShadowfoxDrow's last 5 rumour replies
To ShadowfoxDrow's last 5 banter replies
ShadowfoxDrow's rumours posts with other poster's replies to ShadowfoxDrow's rumours posts
04 May 2016 21:04:25
There is a big discussion if Stamkos is coming here or not. I am in favour of it, because an elite 1C is something we want (even with Matthews, he'll need time) . However, it is not a certainty, and i'm going to look at other options.
Backes is also a UFA this year, and he won't cost 10M+. He has playoff experience and plays a physical game which we need. He'll likely get 5 maybe 6 years of term, which aligns better with contracts, and would still be able to be a leader and shelter Matthews while he learns the ropes. He'd likely be a better fit at 2C when Matthews takes over as 1C (Kadri will be an expensive but elite 3C for the last few years of his contract) .
Forward Lineup:
JVR - Backes - Marner
Komorov - Matthews - Nylander
Soshnikov - Kadri - Brown
Hyman - Laich - Greening
I'm ok over the season if Brown and Komorov switch, but I want a vet on each like to help teach/ protect the rookies. After the swap, line 2 will be very much a scoring threat, and line 3 will be one of the most annoying lines to play against.
I don't know that we have a slot for Vessey, unless Sosh goes to the 4th line, and he slots in there. But would he want to come here to be 3rd line?
If we do sign Stamkos, who we do have cap room for IMHO, then put him in instead of Backes.
The above lineup assumes Bozak is used to improve either defence or goalie, but I assume defence.
TOR
Bozak
2nd 2016 or 2017
Corrado
NASH
Ryan Ellis
If I recall correctly, he's signed until the 2018-19 season at a reasonable 2.5M. He's not huge, but he's a solid RHD who has a great shot from the point and can quarterback a PP. Nashville gets a serviceable 2/ 3C, and another defence prospect, and a pick to help expedite the process (maybe a 3rd, depending on value) . Leafs move Corrado (who doesn't really have a future here in my opinion) and Bozak for a top 4 D-man to compliment Reilly, Gardiner, and Zaitsev. Plus, Ellis has been mentored by Weber, and is only 25ish, which matches our desires going forward.
Defence Lineup:
Reilly - Ellis
Gardiner - Zaitsev
Marrincin/ Hunwick - Carrick
This top 4 is a mobile, offensively dangerous and good at moving pucks. It could use a true #1 stay-at-home defenseman, but I think this would be a great stopgap to introduce Zaitsev to the NHL while we find/ grow that #1 D-man.
As far as out situation in goal, many people mention going after Murray. I would love to add him, but I think Pits would be more likely to trade Fleury now that Murray has shown he can step up in the post season. Vasilevski is probably a more likely shot, since Bishop is their man going forward. I would thus approach Tampa and try to get a deal done this summer, as opposed to waiting until next summer for the expansion draft. (If Stamkos signs here, it might cause a grudge so this deal may be more difficult) .
Tampa may be interested in Kapanen, since they have a history of trusting young top talent. A pick and another prospect could get it done.
TOR
Kapanen
Sparks or Bibeau
3rd
Harrington and/ or Percy
TAMPA
Vasilevski
2nd
Tampa gets a talented forward, a goalie prospect who is not far away from backup NHL duty, and a defence prospect or two. Toronto upgrades their position in net, and upgrades a 3rd to a 2nd.
(note: I may be way off in value on any/ all of these trades, especially with picks involved. I'm just speculating, and they aren't really the main point.
This season we would have Bernie with the chance to prove he can hack it as a #1, and Vasilevski will back him up and possibly overtake him if he falters.
Goalie lineup:
Bernier
Vasilevski
Additionally, we could bring back Reimer for a lot less assets, who I've always been a fan of, but we do know that the combo of bernier/ Reimer has proved it isn't as effective as we'd like.
Anderson from Anaheim is another option as well.
Ultimately, I feel like these few moves aren't completely unrealistic, and can bring us out of the basement pretty quickly next season.
Let me know what you think!
Shadow.
1.) 05 May 2016 02:15:42
I like it
Some very good points
Good post
2.) 05 May 2016 02:31:54
I like the Backes idea, I think he'd fit well I just don't know how Kadri would react playing third line centre to start the season, might work out well but well see! I wouldn't have marner as our number one RW, I'd make him work for it! . I like the Bozak trade, but I think were overpaying with the Tampa trade! I don't feel as if were benefitting at all, I'd stick with the goalies we have for now! Sparks has potential, make him play a full season and go from there! Drafting a goalie this year would be essential as well.
3.) 05 May 2016 07:55:40
I agree Kadri might not like being 3C, but I envision our lines to be more 2A and 2B, with them getting similar minutes but used in different match up (kadri line vs harder opposition, Matthews line more time than typical 3rd line).
I'm also ok if Nylander and Marner are competiting for the top line. I just want one of them to play with Matthews since they can both dish passes like nobodies business.
I'm not opposed to keeping our goalies for another year and then deciding to change, but if an option to upgrade is available and isn't breaking the bank it might be worth the conversation. I'm thinking we try to get a deal done now ahead of the expansion to limit potential competition (aka Edmonton, Calgary, etc.)
Thanks for the feedback/input though!
Shadow
4.) 05 May 2016 12:03:18
Not much of a fan of the Backes deal, but the others seem good. IMO, if the Leafs are not going to sign Stamkos, then don't bother signing another C, just roll with Matthews, Nylander and Kadri. Really want the team to sign Vesey as well!
27 Apr 2016 18:54:03
Minnesota is lacking picks, of which we have many. I have heard a lot of talk lately of Dumba as an option.
What if we send a 2nd (WASH) 2016 and a second (SJ) 2017 plus one of Percy/ Holland for Dumba?
Don't know much of Dumba, where is his value at?
Shadow.
01 Apr 2016 20:57:48
I feel like with the plethora of picks we have, we could go after some RFAs. If we value Player X as worth Compensation Price Y, but most likely wouldn't actually get to trade for them. It's not a bad idea to hunt for an RFA if he's worth more to us than the compensation we'd have to give up. Plus, the teams either get the picks (which are of less value than the player we're submitting an offer for, since we are ok worth losing them), or they pay more to keep them. If we do this for players we want and offer non-ridiculous offers, we either get a player we want at an acceptable price, or the other teams are that much less flexible going forward since they will out bid our deal to keep them. I feel like RFA poaching is a lost art, and Lou should consider it since we have a ton of picks.
1.) 01 Apr 2016 23:14:58
I like what your saying but remember any rfa compensation would fall in the 2017 draft not with this years large group of picks. Plus all compensation must be your pick. The 3rd is gone already in 2017 and I can't see the leafs risking their 1st. We all know how that ended up last time. To me use the plethora of picks and trade for rfa rights.
2.) 02 Apr 2016 11:50:26
Definitely trading for the rights is the way to go. Then you can control which picks you are sending.
3.) 02 Apr 2016 15:40:02
This also opens the Leafs up to other teams doing it to them at a later date.
4.) 03 Apr 2016 20:52:49
Other teams can already do this. That said, trading for the rights is probably better. Forgot about the picks coming in next year.
Side note, do the compensation picks for Lou and Babcock have to be ours as well, or any 3rd we have? Also, is sooner rather than later better, since we have more picks in the immediate future?
5.) 04 Apr 2016 07:13:27
Compensation picks don't have to be your own. The leafs could give one or both this year if they wanted. However they work it out over the next 3 drafts they owe the wings and devils each a 3rd.
21 Feb 2016 04:10:43
Firstly, while I like JVR, I feel like we could move him to greater effect. In the next few years, we have Nylander, Marner, Kapanen, Dnytro Mysterious (Timashov), and one of (most likely) Matthews/ Pulijarvi/ Lainey coming up and looking at our prospect pool we could use some help on Defence. I think we should use JVR to get that help, either this year or next, as his contact is great at the moment.
No particular target, but maybe starting with this as an idea.
Win - JVR, 2nd
Tor - Trouba, 1st
Someone else on here had JVR for Trouba and 2nd, but I think there is a bit more value we could get. Again, could be altered or a different Dean elsewhere, but a big shut down right handed D would be a great add.
Move out the RFAs.
Nsh - Parenteau
Tor - 2nd, 4th
Resign him in the off season (he's reportedly up for it) . No more than 2 years. I would be up for 1 year and repeat a trade deadline move.
Sjs - Polak
Tor - 2nd
Shsrks are reportedly looking hard at Polak. If we can get anything extra, such as a 4th, all the better.
Chi - Boyes
Toronto - 4th
Hossa going down means Chicago can use some depth. Boyes world be a cheap addition.
Grabner would be a better for I think but cap hit is too much. He gets us a 4th elsewhere.
Mathias ends up getting a 5th or 6th.
We keep Komorov because he leafs by example, and we're better with him then what he gets us (unless it's stupid good, like a 1st and an A prospect)
I think moving Bozak is wise as well. Kadri will be 1C next year and probably year after until Matthews (hopefully) or Nylander takes it from him. He's also Babcock's player, and is becoming a much better player.
1.) 21 Feb 2016 18:51:59
That JVR trade would solidify the Leafs back end for a decade. Hope it happens but doubtful.
2.) 23 Feb 2016 10:01:23
not doubtful at all, winnipeg can't afford him going forward unless they move myers this would be amazing for the leafs!
ShadowfoxDrow's banter posts with other poster's replies to ShadowfoxDrow's banter posts
30 Apr 2016 06:24:04
So with the whole Edmonton debacle, people the last few years have been discussing changes to the draft lottery. On the one hand we need the teams that are bad to be able to draft good players. On the other hand, we want to eliminate the incentive for teams to want to be bad in order to receive a better pick. I have just thought of an alternative way to determine draft order, and it's still in its VERY rough stages, but I'll outline my idea as it has currently come to me and hopefully by the end of this post I'll have figured out a way to flesh it out a little. Note: I am posting from mobile so if format gets wonky I'm sorry in advance!
To put it simply, I want to auction off draft position. Except the bids aren't in the form of money.
Teams would get X number of points depending on a few factors:
- position in the standings this year. (more points for worse teams) **
- position in the draft in X previous years. (less points for someone who just drafted 1st. overall vs someone who just drafted last)
- possibly also other things, such as point earned over the season, or after trade deadline, All Star break, or some other deadline (specifically not after eliminated from playoffs, to also give points for everyone trying to win) .
** - there could be a similar lottery like there is now, either equal or with worse overall getting better chance at a large sum of points, and the cup winners getting the worse chances. Everyone would be in on the lottery either way, to give an aspect of random luck.
Giving more points to worse teams would continue the logic of giving bad teams better players (or the chance to draft better players) .
Giving fewer points to someone who just drafted first overall would incentivize better player developement (looking at you edmonton) and keep someone from getting multiple consecutive first overall picks.
Giving points relative to points earned puts some more incentive on winning, even if you get second. Perennial playoff teams who aren't contenders but aren't bad enough to miss them would be rewarded for strong play even if they don't win the cup. (combined with past draft position points would eventually let them get top talent to push for the cup instead of staying in limbo forever a la Detroit/ Minnesota) .
If points are given for post deadline wins, like many people suggest, it would help teams from mailing it in after they think they won't make the playoffs.
One very interesting thing would be trades. Rather than trading a pick at an unknown ranking, teams would trade points. The Leafs this season, rather than having a ton of random picks, would simply have a lot of extra points with which to bid. Teams that trade their picks/ points away would have less.
The system would need to have certain regulations, such as minimum or maximum point bids. It wouldn't be good if Team A that has the most points just bids them all on 1st overall and only has the one draft pick for the year. Just like it wouldn't be good for teams to let everyone else blow their wads on the top picks and the bid for a bunch of picks in a row. (although these could be legit strategies, and might be interesting to let happen) . We all seek to have faith in Hunter, so more picks = better, but we also would want higher quality of picks. This system would let there be a trade off of the two.
There are a number of ways bidding could go. It could be silent auction way, so nobody knows who is bidding what (no guarantee you'll get first unless you bid high) . It could be that each position of the draft is bid on individually, with the losers losing their bids as well. This would lead to hedging bets. You don't want to bet high and lose it for nothing. This could keep teams from trying to rush the 1st overall. There are others that I might not even know about.
Depending on what method is used it could be televised in some way. Especially if the lottery option above is used.
As far as numbers of points and specific criteria, I have thought this for the first time about two hours ago, so I have no idea where to start on that front.
I am quite tired, and mostly just excited for tonight's (holy, I need to go to bed, damn) draft lottery. This probably has a ton of holes in it, and I accept that. I would however love to hear thoughts or input for improvement. If you have issues or criticism, please detail them enough other than posting "ridiculous, wouldn't work. "
Thanks for reading!
Shadow
TL;DR - teams get points for various criteria, use those points to bid on draft position.
27 Apr 2016 18:48:20
I feel like a lot of people who post trades need to stop and think "if I am willing to do this trade all day, why would they do it? "
Most trades aren't home runs, and need to be able to be considered wins from both sides to go through.
Example 1:
Leafs need defence and a goalie, and have a lot of skilled forwards.
Edmonton also need defence and a goalie, as well they have many skilled forwards.
Thus, they would be terrible trade partners (we're not getting McDavid) .
Example 2:
Leafs need a top 2 defenceman and a #1 goalie. We have good skilled forwards, many picks and prospects.
Minnesota has very few picks this year, and could use some skill in front and some prospects to fill their bare cupboards.
We could trade them a pick or two as well as a prospect or two for a solid Dman, such as Dumba. While the particulars would need to be solidified, the match up is there to at least start a discussion.
TL;DR - people need to consider each team's needs when posting trades.
Shadow.
15 Apr 2016 16:29:56
With all the Stamkos talk many people being up money and the possibility of him getting massive endorsement deals if he comes to Toronto.
Can Rogers, as the independent company, offer him a huge endorsement deal to be the face of their franchise, even though they are stakeholders in the ownership of the leafs who pay his salary?
You could argue that it would be cap circumvention, but at the same time Rogers is its own company and has its own market, and having a star player endorse them is a legitimate option for them, so I doubt it could be concretely proven, no?
Shadow.
1.) 19 Apr 2016 16:18:25
Stamkos would make a lot of money on endorsement deals in TO. He wants to be a superstar and here he can be one (if he delivers of course).
2.) 22 Apr 2016 04:51:27
My question is would it be problematic for Rogers specifically (or Bell) to offer endorsements, due to their relationship as ownership of the Leafs?
09 Apr 2016 20:27:59
Currently trying to avoid studying for finals, so I'm going to post here for some fun. Here's a potential lineup next year (with some assumptions) and my thoughts on how we could have a very good team next year.
Assumption 1: Sign Stamkos. I know this is not very likely, I'd probably put it at less than 50%, but for the sake of this exercise we are able to sign him (much like we signed babcock on the promise of becoming a legend when the leafs win)
Assumption 2: Draft Matthews. This is more likely, but possibly less important if we do sign Stamkos. The changes in case we get one of the Finns can be found below.
Assumption 3: We sign Zaitsev. I don't know too much about him, but from what I hear he'll slot nicely into a top 4 role, and we're pretty much a lock to sign him.
Assumption 4: Vessey signs elsewhere. Can't have us winning all of the chance games, can we? hah
Forwards:
Line 1
JVR - Stamkos - Marner
Marner is not going back to the OHL. He's killed it so far and I think between this off season's conditioning to add some size, and putting him with bigger players such as JVR and Stamkos, he'll be able to play successfully in the NHL. Teams won't bully him so much if they're trying to shut down the other two. He'll likely end up being a winger, despite people wanting him to play centre, but either way, starting on the wing is better for his development.
Line 2
Komorov - Kadri - Nylander
Babcock has stated that he'd prefer Nylander start on the wing and transition that way, and I think that's what he'll do. Kadri, despite the polarizing thoughts on him, is a good 2C, and both he and Leo will play hard and compliment Nylander's game. Willie will have to learn to play harder, but Leo and Kadri will do what Sosh and Hyman do for him now, which is get the puck back. Both Kadri and Nylander have good playmaking skills and passing ability, and Komorov and Willie both have better finishing skills than Kadri this year, but all in all it will be a hard line to play against that can score a good number of goals.
Line 3
Soshnikov - Matthews - Leivo
Matthews is a big centre, and while starting on the wing is usually a better plan, Matthews has the size, skillset, and strength to start centre, as he's already shown he can dominate at centre in the Swiss league. Having him on the 3rd line will give him somewhat sheltered minutes to transition to the NHL (competition level and rink size) . I think having Sosh on his wing, who has grit and a decent level of skill is a good pairing. I'm not too set on Leivo being the other winger, but I think having a scoring touch on the line is a good idea, especially if Matthews is able to dish passes as well as he can score himself.
Line 4
Greening - Laich - Hyman
Greening has impressed me the last few games, and he has some good speed and grit to his game. Laich will serve as a good veteran presence in the lineup, and I like that he's been a character guy in interviews and the like. Production-wise he might not be there, and an argument could be made to have the Goat take his place, but I think a year on the Marlie will bring Gautier to the next level and he'll slot in the following year in the Big club's lineup. Hyman is a Babcock-type player, and would be a great 4th-line energy player.
Additional Forwards
Michalek - Might be slotted in every now and then, but probably not a important factor in the lineup.
Lupul - I'm assuming Lupul probably isn't going to play much. If he isn't injured, he'll probably replace Hyman on the 3rd line wing, and give some veteran leadership to Matthews. As far as character and leadership, I like Lupul, but he's injured too often and for too long to truly be a leader.
Parenteau - I know his contract is up this year, but if I am management and if I want to take a slower approach with any of the wingers listed (most likely Leivo, but possibly Hyman), I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back Parenteau for another year. He's played well this year, and can score relatively well for an older fringe player. He could add a bit of age and experience to the otherwise young team, and could be worth bringing back.
* Don't sign Matthews * - If we don't sign Matthews, but we do get one of the Finns, then slot Nylander as the 3C and put the Finn we sign on the 2W. If we go 4th, we'll probably take a dman or Dubois, neither of which I forsee in the lineup. In that case, One of the additional Forwards gets slotted into the lineup (probably Lupul until he gets hurt, then Parenteau afterwards)
Defence:
1st Pairing
Reilly - X
Obviously Reilly stays on our top pairing. X - Here is where I'm branching away from the generally acceptable assumptions above. I think we need to move some players for a top Dman. I'll expand on that below.
2nd Pairing
Gardiner - Zaitsev
Gardiner is continuing to grow, and is a good number 3 Dman. Using what I've heard about Zaitsev, he should slot in nicely with Gardnier as the number 4.
3rd Pairing
Marincin - Hunwick
Marincin has impressed me a little with his play after the Phaneuf move. I'd sooner keep him than not, especially since I feel our prospects on D aren't ready to jump to the NHL yet (especially since we're taking the longer percolation of prospects approach) . We have Hunwick for another year on contract, and he'll probably stick around for that reason alone. I don't really like Hunwick much, but he's not a bad option as a 5/ 6 guy for next season. He hasn't stood out either way for me in most games, but he'll not be here after next season.
Other Defencemen
Carrado - He's an RFA and probably worth keeping around, but if they get rid of him I wouldn't be upset. We picked him up for nothing, so if we lose him for nothing there's no net loss. If we send him somewhere for anything, it's a net gain, and he hasn't impressed me too much this season, although the sample size is small. He is good at generating shots for though, so Dubas might keep him for his analytic value, even if he's not a star Dman.
Goalie:
Bernier
Bernier is here for another season, and I expect him to not have as bad a season as this one. If we can move him and a pick/ prospect for an A-prospect goalie I would do it, but I don't expect that to happen.
Y
Another up in the air selection. I don't think sparks is coming up next year, especially after his confidence was shot from the tank this season. Bibeau might come up, but I don't know if he is NHL ready yet either. I could see us adding a good backup goalie to play behind Bernier if we leave them both in the AHL, but I feel like management needs to decide on if they like Sparks or Bibeau more, because splitting the Marlies' starts might not be enough to elevate them to next level (I don't think they are NHL starters either of them, but who knows) . I like Reimer more than Bernier, and I can see us bringing him back (he's a great character guy and wanted to stay here), but I don't know if that would fly. Money wise he might be too costly depending on the Cup run of SJ. He wasn't to blame for the Series-which-shall-not-be-named, nor for much of the issues the last few years, and has been treated poorly by management through it all, but it is an option for sure. (honestly I see Edmonton making a push for him, which will be sad because they have no defense to help him) .
X - The top Defenseman issue is probably our biggest one if the assumptions prove true. There is a lot of talk on here of getting Trouba from Winnipeg, and while that's an option, it might not be available or reasonable, or even the best one. Ideally, we can get a big shutdown RHD to pair with Reilly. Those are hard to trade for. It might be an easier option to get a decent 3/ 4 Shutdown RHD, and hold out for an UFA Dman. Polak and Yandle are UFAs this year, and Burns, Hedman, and Shatinkirk are UFAs in 2017. They might prove costly, but might be worth it depending (I really like Burns) . Chances of them not being resigned are low (Hedman is almost locked in especially if Stamkos doesn't sign, for example), but until we can draft a top pairing Dman, we are weak on defense. In the above lineup, Bozak isn't included, and that's because I've assumed we were able to trade Bozak + 2016 1st (Pits) (maybe other stuff) for a Dman to slot in with Reilly (possibly Hamonic, for example) .
Final Lineup:
JVR - Stamkos - Marner
Komorov - Kadri - Nylander
Soshnikov - Matthews - Leivo
Greening - Laich - Hyman
Reilly - X
Gardiner - Zaitsev
Marincin - Hunwick
Bernier
Y
Anyway, I feel the above is a pretty awesome lineup to ice in year two of a rebuild, and we'd be pushing for a wildcard spot more likely than ending up in the bottom again. Where exactly we place depends on how much growing pains there are, and if the prospects are NHL ready (Marner, Matthews, etc. ) . In terms of depth, we are strong there for all but the top end talents, so any of the 2nd line down or 2nd or 3rd pairings can be supplemented with some of those in the AHL. Goalie injury or underperformance would be the biggest hurdle if it were to happen.
Let me know if I'm crazy, or what you would change.
Shadow.
1.) 09 Apr 2016 21:57:12
Also forgot about Connor Carrick, who I love, who would be an extra D or replace Hunwick in the bottom pairing, and Hunwick would be 7th/8th defence with Corrado.
2.) 09 Apr 2016 22:08:51
If we don't sign Stamkos, but do get Matthews, we probably still move bozak+ to get a Dman to play with Reilly, but if we get neither Stamkos nor Matthews, he stays.
In the first case, centres are kadri nylander Matthews, and in the second case centres are kadri nylander bozak.
3.) 10 Apr 2016 03:11:37
Great post shadow, I remember some of my most inspired works coming during the procrastination of studying for finals :). Well done, you have a lot of great thoughts there and I'll like the possibilities here. If Stamkos doesn't sign well then we have a big void at centre ice and maybe one of the young guys moves to the centre position and Vesey signs on the wing
I really like the Hamonic idea… I hadn't thought of that as an option, although I know his desire is to go west so I'm not sure that totally works but good idea
Now that we've locked up the best chance at first overall we now I'll wait with optimism and hope for April 30… Here's to the leafs winning that lottery
ShadowfoxDrow's rumour replies
13 Aug 2016 05:20:41
Contract is far too large. Of the keep half and add, or take lupus back and I'd still ask them to add, maybe. But only if lehtonten has 1 year left.
13 Aug 2016 05:18:51
How long of a contract does he have?
13 Aug 2016 05:18:10
Too many kids to start with.
24 Jul 2016 14:58:22
Absolutely not.
10 Jul 2016 06:12:13
No thanks. JVR gets that without Sparks, and we don't need to get a prospect backup as return for our most valuable asset.
Shadow
ShadowfoxDrow's banter replies
15 May 2016 23:05:49
It's not that he's a bust, I think it's just that people are hoping to trade from our strength (higher skilled wingers) for positions of weakness (D and G) for a quicker fix of those areas. I don't know if I agree or not.
Shadow
15 May 2016 16:39:46
Vessey better than JVR? I like vets and rookies together in my lineups, but future lineup suggests time passed, and so they would not be rookies anymore.
Shadow
15 May 2016 16:38:16
I'll take pool party at 3 because his name :P
12 May 2016 00:58:05
Honestly it's better that we only sign him for 7 in my opinion. Because they aren't trading away Matthews, and eventually Matthews, Nylander, and Marner are going to be expensive.
07 May 2016 13:31:12
I think "Vessey replaces JVR" is either an huge overstatement, or I'm missing out on a secret cache of Vessey videos that show his elite talent.
Shadow