Leafs Talk

 

Use our rumours form to send us leafs trade rumors.

(single word yields best result)
 
We've now created a mental health web site

This page last updated: 23:04:48

04 Apr 2020 21:39:32
Leafs sign Barbanov

Because we need another winger forward.

Seriously though, is that what Dubas' new plan is. To cycle out our guys to bring in cheaper Russians every year and hope they do the same job.

I obviously never heard of this guy, and I can't even be bothered to look up his clips on YouTube. Rather just wait and see what he's like if we sign him.

Someone posted something earlier about Leafs signing Russians and stuff. I think that is what the plan is. Keep mining Europe and Russia for these guys that are kicking ass in KHL and bring them to NA. I don't know how much I like the idea personally. It means a lot of turnover. And kinda hurts team morale that you either accept a pay cut or get replaced. It's just business right?

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 01:54:26
So I was looking at time on ice for the Leafs. Matthews and Marner are the only two players that average more than 20 minutes on ice for the forwards. They come in at around 21 minutes a night.

Meanwhile, in Edmonton, Draisaitl and McDavid come in at 22 minutes and RNH at 20.5.

I'm pretty sure Leafs can boost some of our guys minutes and see some better results. If our top two lines averaged 20 minutes a night, that would leave 10 minutes a night for the bottom two lines. Hyman and Tavres already get 19 and Nylander gets 18.5. So if we boost at least just those five guys up to 20-21 minutes a night average between the five MNMTH, that's almost a 10% increase in ice time. Which means 10% more goals coming from those guys. That's a lot of goals.

Leafs run a studs'n'duds system. So why not lean on our studs a bit more?

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 05:32:55
This would be extreme, but if we had each of our top two lines out for 7.5 minutes each period, that would be 22.5 minutes a night for our top players. I think they can handle it. Draisaitl and McDavid both play around 22 minutes. In my honest opinion, these guys are all in pretty close to the same physical shape. There probably isn't much separating Hyman from McDavid in terms of muscle, body fat, endurance, etc. So it's all a matter of deployment. How the coaches are wanting to run their lines.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 05:45:11
The way this is going after Kappy, Kerfoot and Johnson all get traded it may be the top 2 lines 28 minutes a game soon lol.

Biggest reason I think you see less TOI for all the leafs big boys vs most other teams (not specifically EDM) is that none of them kill penalties and under babs especially it was one minute of pp time then get off the ice. Some of these teams run their first PP for close to 2 minutes unless it's back to back power plays which accounts for an extra minute to 5 minutes a night depending on situation.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 16:17:01
I went through game-by-game, and there were a few games where Matthews was playing over 25 minutes a game. Obviously I wouldn't expect a forward to play 25 minutes a game every night, but it does show that these guys are capable of playing more.

And yes, if Dubas guts depth now like we suspect, then we could see these guys all getting significantly more playing time. Heck, our whole team will consist of MNMT + Reilly and a bunch of ahl'ers and fringe players.

Leafs are basically the only team using this studs'n'duds philosophy. I think it's an interesting concept, but probably not going to be a successful one. But I'm only an armchair gm with a smartphone and a few stats. I don't even fully understand all these new advanced stats. So maybe I'm one of the old school fogies that just don't get it too. Lol.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 16:35:53
I think that's the easiest and best way to get these guys more ice time too. If we ice a top power play of MNMT+Reilly and have them playing for 1.5 minutes every time, that would be an incredibly successful top power play that would be one of the best in the league.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 17:15:52
Dubas really confused me with his new stats though. All signs showed Barrie as useless. Why would a new age GM like himself want to aquire a guy like that then? He seems to use analytics only when it suits him.

I would be running the 1st PP for almost a full 2 minutes if it was up to me as well. Many other teams do and it's successful.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 19:01:40
I don't fully understand all these new so-called "advanced" statistics either. Like you said, the data can be mined and manipulated to suit the needs. And all statistic are flawed in some way or other.

I think the Kadri trade was more about getting rid of Kadri than anything. The A s just happened to have the best offer that suited our needs. We needed a 3C in return no matter what, and brining in Barrie for a year was a patch job to plug RHD.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 19:31:32
Selling Kadri for that just because it's your best offer isn't smart. Dumba and Brodin still on the wild right? Because they didn't get a good offer. I would rather have just kept Kadri. Did something stupid two years in a row but the loss of heart on the team without Marleau and Kadri is noticable to all.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 21:43:52
Some of the advanced stats are easy to understand but inherently flawed. Goat having a league worst cf for example because he always started D zone under Babs.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 00:49:04
Why is it fair the cap doesn't go up anyway? It's not the owners or players fault the league didn't make any more money. They should be raising the cap based on projections. That's not fair that this happens. I can understand when it happened after the lockout. That was a result of owners and players not coming together on terms. But this is no one's fault. They already released projections of the cap going to $84M, -$87M, with it . OST likely being $84M. They should stick with the lowest estimate. That's the most fair thing to do. It's in both players and GM's best interest to have it go up.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 05:46:18
GM's and players want the cap to go up but owners of small market teams are losing money right now. They aren't all stacked with cash. Teams like Ottawa would be in serious trouble if the cap raises while profits flatlined.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 09:56:21
It was explained before that during the season with the cap hit owners are paying the nhl after that any money made is profit the cap is in large part the revenue of the franchise and its what supports that salary cap so from an owners stand point I get it now if the nhl were to pitch in to keep the cap going up it wouldn’t be an issue.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 16:27:31
I doubt very much the NHL is going to pitch in and top up the salaries. Lol.

I understand the point about these teams that aren't as rich as the Leafs may not want to reach the cap ceiling, but how much does the floor go up if the cap goes up? Does the floor increase by an equal amount? If they raise the cap, but keep the floor the same, it wouldn't affect them.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 18:13:16
The cap going up affects players salaries which in turn affects those teams. If the cap was 60m right now Mathews would probably be making 7m. Everything is based on cap hit percentage in negotiations.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 19:04:52
I was wondering about the possibility of making players salaries tied to relative cap hit, no matter what the direction cap goes. But then when cap goes up, teams don't get a windfall gain because all the players salaries would go up too just the same, so that makes absolutely zero sense.

It's a complicated issue. No matter what they do, there is always going to be problems. Heck, most experts agree we have another lockout coming soon when the next CBA needs re-negotiating. So I guess of the best minds in the game can't agree what's best, guys like us don't have a clue.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Apr 2020 21:51:34
They all say a lockout is coming but I disagree on that one. People are getting tired of lockouts. In the last 30 years we have had several. NHL won't want another one if they can help it.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 01:13:55
So what does everyone think you do with Freddy? If Bobrovski is worth 10/ yr then I'm thinking Freddy can probably ask for 7. At his age I'm not sure if that's a good move at his age. May come down to letting him walk.

Agree1 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 11:55:02
Florida is the perfect example of why you don’t sign older goalies to silly contracts I say let him walk.

Agree1 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 15:40:45
As much as I like Freddy I agree 1994. I don't see a situation where he should be signed beyond 3 years but accepts a deal like that.

Agree1 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 15:43:01
Man that compliance buyout would give FLA an extra 10m if they walk away from Bob. They would be a much better team next year.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 18:49:45
Of we walk from Andersen though, who do we replace him with? It's not like there is going to be a whole lot of UFA's capable of doing the same job who will cost us any less. And we definitely don't have anyone in the system. So Leafs have to make a trade then. Considering how long it took Dubas to find a backup, does anyone really believe he will have a true starting goaltender for us before it becomes a state of emergency?

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 14:08:32
LGM go on cap friendly and look at all the teams there are a lot of goalies and top goalies that are up for new deals two years from now so when you ask what we do I say wait till next year then address it but if we go with history leafs have often went and got their starters via trade and as for our goalie prospects I haven’t given up on Scott he was injured this year and never got a chance so he could still turn into something.

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 15:45:52
One of the goalies in the system could turn into something but that's 4-6 years away. They aren't even close to ready right now.

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 17:13:59
Who is that.

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 18:59:51
Scott, woll, etc. You never really know with goalies. Some don't shine until far later than forwards.

Agree0 Disagree0

02 Apr 2020 05:13:11
There may be a lot of top goalies up for renewal, but if they don't sign for less than Andersen, then what's the point? Might as well keep Andersen. That was the point I was trying to make. Getting a guy as good as him off the UFA market will cost us roughly the same as what we would pay him if we re-signed him. Which means if we want the same quality of goaltending, but at cheaper price, we have to trade for one. Fortunately goalies don't generally cost a whole lot in trade value because of how incredibly difficult it is to predict performance in any given year. With goalies, more than any other player on the team, past performance does not equal future performance (Bobrovsky anyone? ) .

Agree0 Disagree0

02 Apr 2020 06:16:17
@Leafs1994

Lol. I did exactly what you said. I went on cap friendly and went team by team looking for a goalie that was younger than Andersen (Andersen will be 31 when his contract expires), comparable to Andersen, who was UFA in two years, and who would likely be a little cheaper than Andersen. The only goalie I found was Binnington. Lol.

There are a few other guys set to be free agents same time as Andersen, but most of them are older (some are 35+) and would be the same salary cost. So may as well just stick with Andersen. A trade for a younger, cheaper goalie that is starter material seems the best for the Leafs.

Agree1 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 15:22:12
Potential lineup next season

Nylander Matthews Hyman
Robertson Tavares marner
Mikheyev Bennett kapanen
Engvall Spezza Korshkov

So roughly I think this lineup could happen as you can see Bennett's name up there I really like the idea of bringing in a good two way center Robertson I think might be a player we have to use next year with cap issues but I think playing with a play maker like marner he would have a good chance of succeeding

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 19:40:20
I like the thought. And I can see a point, very soon, where Dubas realizes he can't afford to carry three scoring lines and is forced to revert his third line into a trio of plugs.

But is Bennett really any better than Kerfoot though? Leafs are in "win-now" mode and won't downgrade at all unless they are forced. I don't think Kerfoot has been all that bad for us either. He wasn't scoring at the same rate he was in Colorado, which has been a little disappointing, but he has played decent two-way hockey this year. If we had to lose Kerfoot in order to bring in Bennett I'm not sure I could see Leafs doing it unless it was a cost cutting manuoever of some sort.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 01:14:41
I wouldn't mind Bennett but doesn't seem like a huge upgrade.

Kerfoot is what he is. He's a solid middle 6 guy. For what makes you won't find much better I don't think.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 11:58:11
Bennett is not known for his offence but he plays well in both ends of the ice might be an option on the penalty kill he is bigger and plays a gritty game I think that’s more important to have in the third line role.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 15:44:04
Good points 1994. Could be that having another grittier guy is huge.

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 01:23:33
Grit. So undefined. But so much of what makes the average NHL team work. The grunts, the grinders, the workhorses. Whatever you want to call them. Just like the rest of the world, the grunts make up the bulk of the team and a few stars on top make up the rest. The grunts all get minimum wage while the stars make enough money to make your mouth salivate. But Leafs don't have any grunts. They are trying to run a team full of skilled guys, but only want to pay league minimum. It's a radical new theory being pursued by Dubas. The whole strong-link"

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 08:54:19
Apologies to (I think) LeafsGM, who posted about points for goals and assists. I was editing on my phone and my fat fingers chose the wrong box and ended up losing your question rather than putting it up! If you could send it again I will make sure to post it up this time, sorry mate.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 12:51:44
Sure No Problem.

I was suggesting 2 points for every goal and 1 point for every assist. Not my idea originally. We've all probably seen it somewhere else. Supposedly encourages more goals. Maybe even take it a step further and only give 1/ 2 point for secondary assists.

I've always felt the Art Ross was a little too tilted to rewarding a lot of points to guys that don't do a lot of the actual work involved in the goal being scored. Sometimes those secondary assists are pretty suspect. A lot of times it just happens to be the last guy that so happens to touch the puck before it is rushed up ice and eventually scored. So why does the guy that has no impact on the actual final play get the same points as the guys that lead the rush, make the play, and scores the goal?

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 15:26:34
I have been an advocate for 2 points on goals for awhile. I also would like to see 3 points for a win now we have a loser point.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 15:26:58
And while where on the subject of changes this asanine playoff format can leave too.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 17:28:19
This playoff format is the worst thing I've ever seen any professional sports do. It is overly complicated and heavily tilted to rewarding poor play. I don't agree with the playoffs format one bit.

And I don't mind the idea of changing the point system for wins/ losses too. I never really found it fair that a regulation tie is worth a point. It gives teams incentive to sit on a tie going into the final half of the third period. You don't get the same intensity to win when you know that you get a point no matter what as long as you tie the game. It really does change the way the game is played, and again, seems to reward the losers.

I feel like the NHL has tried to do it's best to make the league parity as equal as possible, but in a few spots has gone too far and is benefitting poor play and the losers. If that point for tie wasn't there, you would see a lot more exciting third periods, and you wouldn't have poor teams like Dallas or Columbus or even Islanders squeeking in to the playoffs.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 01:15:19
That's why I'd say go with 3 points for a win if the loser point stays. Still get something but 2 extra points is huge. That's definitely worth going for.

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 14:26:03
I say get rid of the loser point I don’t get the point in rewarding the loser of a game as for the playoff format I too hate it I understand what they are trying to do with trying to create rivalries in the division but to me it not entertaining to watch the same teams play each other in the playoffs year after year it should be the best 8 teams in each conference I wouldn’t even mind going to 10 teams a conference but I just think they need to change it up in that aspect.

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Apr 2020 15:58:07
I had absolutely no issue with 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc. I never understood why that was changed in the first place.

Agree0 Disagree0

02 Apr 2020 17:30:28
I agree with Leafs1994 too. In a league with 32 teams it is very difficult to have proper rivalries because you only see your rival a half dozen games a year and night not ever face then in the playoffs for a decade or more.

If the NHL want to have rivalries again, then they should have the top four teams from each division play each other first. Then have a divisional final. Then the winners go on to the conference final, and finally, the last two teams play in the league finals. It makes way more sense that way, and still allows for a weaker team in one division to make the playoffs ahead of a stronger team in another division.

If they are going to keep the playoffs the same format now, where it's a conference standings based system, then they should eliminate the whole top three teams from each division making it. That's not fair to stronger teams in the other division.

The NHL seems to be using a hybrid system, where the method of getting in to the playoffs is a based on division points more than conference points, but then expect the teams to be playing conference opponents first before they might even play a divisional rival. It doesn't make sense.

I also agree LeafsLife. I liked the old system. It was straightforward and it didn't reward weaker teams over stronger ones. The current system favors the weaker teams and makes it too easy to sneak into the finals. I thougt the point of playing your best in the regular season was so that you can secure home ice advantage and be rewarded with playing a weaker team first. Now it is almost best to come in middle of the pack. Last year was a huge kick to the balls to the Leafs. They had a 100+ point season and were the third or fourth best team in the league, and their reward was that they got to play the second best team and eventual runner-up to the Stanley Cup. Next to Blues, Leafs were the toughest opponents Bruins had to face. And its easily arguable the Leafs are a better team than the Blues, but Blues had better goaltending. So basically, the cup finals were played in the first round.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Mar 2020 00:24:49
Dubas might have another 7th round steal in this Loponen kid. He came over and played OHL this year and did well. Next year he will be in the AHL. I think with him, Hollowell, and Duszak at least one of them will make the NHL in some capacity. Hollowell reminds me of Spurgeon. In five years, a defense of
.
Sandin/ Liljegren
Dermott/ Holl
Risen/ Hollowell
*Loponen, Duszak

Is not inconceivable in five years. Depending on who we can afford to keep and who we can't, I could almost see this happening. By that point Muzzin would be gone, and we might lose Reilly to free agency. That would be the only two current Leafs not here in five years, and Muzzin its a given won't be back after his contract is gone. Hopefully our in house prospects can take their spots, and from what I'm seeing and hearing, it looks pretty good so far. And in between we might even draft another star in the making too.

Agree0 Disagree1

29 Mar 2020 17:17:06
I can see that in 5 years. Depending on how everyone progresses this could be a solid D corps.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 07:11:15
Holl is questionable too. In five years he would be 32-33. So revere around there. Buy his game isn't built around speed though, so who know?

Agree0 Disagree0

27 Mar 2020 01:47:39
Leafs lineups next year

Kerfoot/ Matthew/ Marner
Robertson/ Tavares/ Hyman
Johnsson/ Nylander/ Kapanen
Mikheyev/ Spezza's/ Engvall
*Gauthier, Brooks, Petan

Reilly/ Holl
Muzzin/ Dermott
Sandin/ Liljegren
*Rosen, Marincin

I could see Rosen getting some ice time as Keefe maybe continues to bring in Sandin and Liljegren and with Holl and See. ott in new roles, Risen might be able to fill in there as well.

I like Rosen. I expected him to make the team this year. Glad to see him back. Trading Hutch for him is an A in my book. Good job well done there Dubas.

Agree0 Disagree2

27 Mar 2020 03:06:22
Rosen trade was getting something for nothing and I really liked it as well. Not a monumental trade but one of those you look at and think he pulled a rabbit out of a hat there.

I like pairings and I think Rosen is miles ahead of Marincin.

Agree1 Disagree1

27 Mar 2020 14:58:49
I’d say no to putting Nylander at 3C he earned his top 6 spot and with him playing the left side now kinda spreads out the talent on the wing I like Kerfoot on the wing but a value willy there more.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Mar 2020 00:30:20
@Leafs1994

So how about:

Nylander/ Matthews/ Marner
Robertson/ Tavares/ Hyman
Kerfoot/ Thornton/ Kapanen
Johnsson/ Spezza/ Mikheyev
*Gauthier

Thornton signs for one year league minimum?

Tavares is a way better centre than SDA. Imagine how many goals Robertson can get playing with him.

Agree0 Disagree1

28 Mar 2020 03:11:47
Nylander at 3C comes down. To who else we have. The way this is heading the top 2 lines may need to play 28 minutes each a game soon lol.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Mar 2020 09:11:06
I bet Dubas would love that.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Mar 2020 15:03:37
He would. Until Mathews or Nylander get hurt and a 12 game losing streak insues.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Mar 2020 16:48:44
My only question is why not just put Spezza at 3C Thornton is old and very slow don’t see what he brings other then leadership.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Mar 2020 20:03:19
I was just reading he was hoping to come here so I threw the idea out there to see what people think.

Agree0 Disagree0

29 Mar 2020 02:50:36
Just don’t see the improvement would rather give someone from the Marlies a shot.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Mar 2020 06:49:45
Yeah. I don't have Engvall or Brooks or even Gauthier on the team. I don't know if any of then are better than Thornton, but the option is there. Engval would be my first choice.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Mar 2020 01:16:45
Someone will be willing to give a guy like goat 2/ yr. I don't think it's Dubas. Eventually he has to go unless there is a coaching change. On a severely defensive team he would fit in even on the third line. The old trap system is made for him but Keefe isn't the guy to get much out of goat.

Agree0 Disagree0

Leafs Talk 2


Leafs Talk 3

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass