Toronto Maple Leafs

By bluebuds on Jul 4, 2009

How does the saying go… can’t see the forest due to the trees? I think what “Tom” was trying to say and correct me if I’m wrong, (should include a link to the comments on that other post) is that in comparison to Toronto, Philly made big bold moves in their acquisitions whereas Toronto really hasn’t. That maybe these small moves are just delaying what we want/need in Toronto and bigger brasher moves are needed.

I don’t know if that is what he is saying or not, maybe he can clarify or something. I don’t know enough to make that call but I can state that in my opinion, I like what I am seeing so far and am excited to see the direction taken so far. No regrets, no remorse.

By mattjordan on Jul 4, 2009

The Red Wings play a lot of the same players every year, yet, they are constantly deep in the playoffs. So, you are right. It’s not that there is a lack of turnover on the Leafs, it’s just the quality of players are not there.

I don’t understand what this “Tom” means. The Flyers have the same core year after year. Every team pretty much does. That is the key, the talent of your core players. That’s what separates a Detroit from a Toronto.

By LeafFan1989 on Jul 4, 2009

Every teams needs to have a talent rich core. You build around that core of 6 players, top 3 forwards, top 2 d-men and a good goaltender. Everything else is expendable and subject to constant change. But as long as the core of the team is still there, you are good. Toronto has the spare parts to surround the core. But our core only consists of one player, Luke Schenn.
What Toronto needs is talent and we currently are as dry as the desert in that department.

By James K on Jul 4, 2009

I can guarantee you that Tom’s perception of Toronto vs. Philadelphia has more to do with the quality of player that has been coming and going from the respective teams.

I think about Philadelphia bringing in Timonen, Hartnell, and Briere, and realize that in that time Toronto has not brought in any player equal to their talent level. The high turnover rate of the bottom-6 players of which the Leafs are assembled doesn’t make a dent in our perception of the team.

The perception of Toronto vs. Philly also has to do with their incredible turnaround, from finishing nearly dead last to reaching the Eastern Conference Finals the next year. Of course, their cupboards were stocked with a few dynamite prospects who seemed to blossom all at once, but they did make over their roster that offseason, as was reflected in the standings.

I can understand the frustration of Tom, and I share it as well, but the Flyers were in a much better position to make those bold moves at the time. Richards & Carter were ready to break out and Simon Gagne was already there. Moving Forsberg and Zhitnik brought in Coburn and Parent, (which has since frightened many GM’s away from moving high-end prospects at the deadline), and further accelerated Philly’s rebuild.

Such a rapid improvement was a result of 1) The team having top end prospects ready to step up, 2) Moving current assets for prospects, and 3) Deeming themselves ready to go after top UFAs.

Toronto isn’t there yet, so we should expect at least one more year in the bottom third of the Eastern Conference before we should think about being as bold as Philly was.

Depending on what we can get for Kaberle, and of course, the development of the youngsters… (Tyler Bozak, bust or gem? Viktor Stalberg, the most highly skilled straight-line waste of talent since Chad Kilger?, or the next Corey Perry?) … we might have a solid core of youth that might be an established star away from contention.

By Tom on Jul 4, 2009

Some clarity from myself is perhaps needed.

Steve has done a great job of showing my generalization to be full of holes, but I think that James K summarizes what I was trying to get across most accurately.

“I would rather the Leafs operate like the Flyers and make a ton of bold moves every year than sit on their hands and do nothing. In the end neither team has won recently, but Flyers fans have the possibility that next year may be different because their team invariably is different year to year. Leaf fans know their team and its results will remain the same.”

The “bold moves” I’m referring to are the transactions such as signing Peter Forsberg, trading for the rights to Timonen and Hartnell, signing Briere, trading for Pronger, letting Biron go for Emery.

Steve is certainly right that the Leafs roster has, on the whole, gone through more turnover recently. What I was referring to was the level of talent involved in the Flyers transactions (to keep this fair, lets say level of talent relative to their existing roster’s talent at the time of these “bold moves” because the Leafs have not been in a position to do business like the Flyers because they lack the pieces to do so). When I said “their team invariably is different year to year” what I was driving at was the level of turnover with their impact players(top six forwards, notable checking line players, top 4 defensemen). I can appreciate the vagueness of what I said.

Let me preface what I’m about to say by first saying:
A)I disagree with a lot of the above mentioned personnel moves the Flyers have made.
B)As many have already said, the Flyers organizational depth played a big part in the facilitation of these moves.
C)As I said earlier, this has not translated into additional Cup wins for the Flyers thus far.

Coming out of the lockout the Leafs added 2nd-3rd tier free agents Jason Allison and Eric Lindros and their impact was marginal. The next offseason the Leafs signed Kubina, Gill and Peca and traded Rask + for Raycroft. Decent top 2 defenseman, decent PK 3-6 defenseman and a checking line character player. The following year the Leafs signed Jason Blake, a older, 2nd tier free agent coming off a career year and traded for Toskala, essentially admitting their mistake with Raycroft.

Since then the Leafs have fired JFJ, and the roster has undergone a significant volume of turnover, but the “bold moves” have not happened since the lockout(other than perhaps the buying out of Tucker, and the trade for Toskala).

We have not seen Leafs player transactions to the level of the Flyers where they signed one of the premier free agents available coming out of the lockout, have signed one of the top dollar UFAs available in Briere and have now traded for a cup winner and game changer in Pronger.

I appreciate Burke’s prudence this UFA season because I don’t think (other than had the Sedins hit the market) that there was a forward who warranted top dollar and term. That being said, that financial prudence only works if you can leverage it later, and the Nash resigning really smarted last night.

I don’t know if it’s rational but does hotstove talk, trades and signings mean anything to fans when compared to wins and loses? To me it does, particularly when the team is in a prolonged rebuild. Sometimes the appearance of action and effort is enough for me to fall in line. Without that action, preaching patience after 40+ can get a little old.

By koopa kid on Jul 4, 2009

Nice post Steve. Winning has a way of colouring fan perception, and Philadelphia is probably one of the best examples out there. It’s also a good indicator of notoriously short memories in regards to fans.

Philadelphia moved from a year which was pretty much an aberration into a successful season, but they did so with a core that was already in place and continues to be important to the team. Philly has certainly seemed like a “new team”, and their moves appear to be bold, but only because Philadelphia has had the success it’s enjoyed of late.

The Leafs in the past have made lots of “bold” moves to bring their team together; notorious moves in regards to Brian Leetch, Owen Nolan, Eric Lindros, or bringing in players that had impact such as Gary Roberts, Brian McCabe, Darcy Tucker. Even further back we were grabbing Sundin and Mogilny. The Leafs enjoyed a lot of playoff success by adding some of those pieces, but nobody really remembers it that way because a championship wasn’t won and they eventually outlived their usefulness.

The Leafs are now paying for taking those gambles, or hanging on to those pieces for too long, but in hindsight fans don’t see the regular season records or playoff series won. Instead they see a broken down club with little roster depth and say “things are always the same”. As I said, short memories.

If Philly fails in it’s gambit to win a cup with it’s “bold moves” and then spirals into decay with a lack of prospects and a tight cap, will people look at them differently than they look at Toronto now?

By Tom on Jul 5, 2009

No doubt the Leafs used to be a team that frequently made bold moves, most often at the trade deadline. One could argue that these moves are the reason the team is now in a prolonged rebuilding phase.

Since the first season back from the lockout, where the sheer lack of talent needed to compete in the new NHL became painfully apparent we have been told that the prudent way to turn the corner and become competitive again would be to bottom feed for a time, reload with young talent and make a sustained competitive run sometime in the future.

I fundamentally disagree with the necessity of following that prescribed path. Is it prudent, and low on risk? Yes. Is it the only way? No.

The JFJ experience amounted to lost years in that the team sat on the cusp, too afraid to blow up what it had, too confident in itself to add the required pieces.

Rather than signing a Forsberg (and we did not have the cap space at that time for a move such as that) the Leafs added Lindros and Allison, two players painfully out of place in the revamped NHL.

I will concede that Hartnell’s impact statistically has yet to be significantly different than Blake’s, and Timonen’s has been on par with Kubina’s.

I will however applaud the Flyers “boldness”, if you will, because they traded a headline player to accommodate these moves, whereas the Leafs were unable to move their own marquee player (Sundin). The Leafs signed Blake and Kubina as UFAs, hardly outside the box thinking.

Hartnell brings a certain level of grit that Blake lacks and is certainly a lot younger with perhaps a higher ceiling than Blake (the Flyers bought low, the Leafs bought high after Blake’s career year). That being said, Timonen’s cost is much higher than Kubina’s was.

If you consider that the Leafs traded a 1st (Rask) for Raycroft, then a 1st, 2nd and 4th for Toskala and Bell (subsequently waiver wire fodder) vs the shrewdness of a 2nd for Biron and UFA move for the KHL Emery I really think the Flyers show a risk taking approach.

Although I disagree with the term and size of Briere’s deal and the assets given up for Pronger, both moves were certainly huge risks that could have /may yet pay off in a cup win.

Since the lockout, the Leafs have failed to take the risks and failed to go outside the norm. They have in a sense been in a state of paralysis. This is changing, albeit slowly!!!

Komi is a major move. If you pair that with, hypothetically, a Beauchemin signing, a Monster signing and a trade of Kaberle for something, I think we would start to see the kind of serious turnover at the talented end of the roster this team needs to move forward quickest. The reason for my initial post was fueled by the fact that three of the above mentioned moves have yet to happen.

You are right Steve that moves for moves sake makes no difference in the end to wins and losses, and that new players need to be given time to show what they have got, by that token Burke needs to be given time as well to remake the team. I will say that the Flyers moves were not “moves for moves sake” and agree or disagree with them, they were calculated risks aimed at improving their team.

So far, a trade deadline, draft day and UFA period (5 days old) have not shown the return I and perhaps others had hoped for/expected from Burke. Being truculent means displaying an aggressive, self-assertiveness; thus far we haven’t seen Burke practice what he has preached.

By Mike on Jul 5, 2009

2008-09 saw some much needed changes but from 2006 final game to the 2008 finale the lineup had 12 of 18 skaters finish 06 and 08 and because of injuries 4 more call ups who are still around.

Ponikarovsky Sundin Antropov
Steen Stajan Tucker
Wellwood
Pohl

Kaberle Mccabe
Coalaiacovo White

Williams played for Antropov in 06 and 08
Ondrus,Newbury and Deveareaux also filled in for injuries and because Colaiacovo could only be healthy for 1 of the 3 finales we saw Kronvall and Richardson.

I can see the frustration in the lack of changes. as long as Antropov and now just Ponikarovsky are slated for top line duties we still are golfing come April. No offense to either but they need to be 2nd line guys. We said it for most of Sundin’s career he needs better linemates and we still need a better 1st line.

we are on the right track, Burke will get it right.

I know the Stempniak trade was not the deal we would make now, but the deal was made as a message to the rest more than an upgrade in talent as was the benching of Mat Stajan.

Steen is the guy we wouldn’t add to a deal to get Pronger
Stajan the media was talking as the next Captain
Colaiacovo although outplayed by White and Bell was always put back in the lineup when healthy because of media hype and when he was drafted.

these guys needed a wake up call. Burke said at the end of the year just because your followed by dozens of media after the game doesn’t make you a star your just a Maple Leaf who still needs to work and get better.

By bkblades on Jul 5, 2009

Maybe we saw different games, but during Carlo Colaiacovo’s tenure with the Leafs, I don’t recall a moment when he was outplayed by either Ian White or Brendan Bell. The only reason Colaiacovo didn’t secure his role on the Leafs was his inability to stay healthy, rather than ineffective play. He was a first rounder because he was a two-way player, nearly an identical clone of Mike Van Ryn who the Leafs employ now.

As for Ponikarovsky, you can look at Steve’s numerous posts about him. But in short, if you think he was reason why the Leafs haven’t been to the playoffs since the lockout, you’re greatly mistaken. Poni has been one of the only players for the Leafs that actually improved and delivered under the JFJ/Fletcher/Burke regimes.

I still maintain Alex Steen was mishandled by the Leafs, and his pedigree as a prospect wasn’t just a sentiment shared by myself, since as you said, the Leafs brass refused to put him in the alleged Chris Pronger deal. So while I agree the Leafs needed a culture/locker room change, they didn’t do a particularly great job maximizing their assets. Again, the jury is still out on Burke, since he’s barely into his first year and the Leafs aren’t going to be changed overnight.

By Tom on Jul 5, 2009

Steve, I want to thank you for the way you go about making your point about UFA fantasy signings. You do so in a calm, deliberate manner, never patronizing.

I just read Berger’s article and it made me want to puke.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Howard-Berger/Fantasyland-Loses-Another/3/21973

The arrogance and contempt he shows his audience is disgusting.

By Tom on Jul 5, 2009

I should say almost never patronizing…

“I bet anyone that said the Leafs should hold off and wait for Rick Nash feels mighty dumb right about now.”

By Mike on Jul 5, 2009

I may have overstated Colaiacovo being outplayed but my point is that there were a few players who believed in the hype and their star status. I would have kept Steen and Colaiacovo but I think Ron Wilson discovered judging by his overweight and out of shape comments directed towards Colaiacovo that work had stopped and complacency had set in with a few players. a message was sent regardless of how Carlo played in St. Louis.

I personaly am a fan of Poni and I dont blame him. I blame the lack of anybody better. We waited 3 years for this group and Stajan and Poni had career years but career 2nd line years.

Now maybe Ponikarovsky has just begun to reach his potential, maybe he is a 1st line guy.

just my thoughts!

keep up the Passion

Go leafs Go

By LeaferSutherland on Jul 5, 2009

Let’s say that the Leafs chose to trade away Hagman, Schenn and two 1sts for Pronger… we probably would have beaten the Flyers offer and made a bold move for ourselves… but then what?

I’m guessing some heavy criticism?

Part of the problem we are seeing is a team choosing to rebuild in a recession. Had the Leafs foreseen these problems and traded away Antropov any other summer, we’d probably have more to show for it than a mere 2nd rounder.

If it weren’t for a couple of pesky NTCs we might have a front line of Jeff Carter, Chris Higgins and whoever else. We would have drafted 3 players in the first round the day we picked up Schenn…

There are a lot of variables to think of. Many of which can be pointed back to JFJ.