Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Frank E

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 256
1
Marlies & Prospect Talk / Re: Ranking Prospects 2018-19
« on: Yesterday at 01:26:08 PM »
Wrong.

Enlightening.

The right answer:

Matthews
Marner
Nylander
Rielly
Dermott
Liljegren
Johnsson
Kapanen
Brown
Grundstrom
Sandin
Borgman
Rosen
Carrick
Durzi
Engvall
SDA
Rasanen
Bracco
Marchment
Moore
Subban
Timashov
Brooks
Korshkov




2
Marlies & Prospect Talk / Re: Ranking Prospects 2018-19
« on: Yesterday at 01:03:39 PM »
My post-draft rankings:

Matthews
Marner
Nylander
Rielly
Dermott
Kapanen
Liljegren
Johnsson
Grundstrom
Sandin
Carrick
Brown
Borgman
Rosen
Durzi
Bracco
Engvall
SDA
Timashov
Moore
Brooks
Marchment
Rasanen
Korshkov
Woll

I re-did them because PPP has their community vote going on right now. 

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/toronto-maple-leafs-top-25-prospects-under-25/2018/7/9/17528052/2018-top-25-maple-leafs-under-25-community-vote-ppp-top-25-under-25-maple-leafs-prospects-carlton

Direct link to the form if you want to vote:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfmv3ZVrQ5OqWnDMEjuWSgFC_lo6KruAemw4oKyM7PWJSRpUQ/viewform?fbzx=-1772282509429105000

I found it easier to do the rankings in notepad++ and then fill in the form than try and rank within the form.

Wrong.

Capital idea, Coco.

My Old ListMy New List
1. Matthews
2. Nylander
3. Marner
4. Rielly
5. Liljegren
6. Kapanen
7. Dermott
8. Johnsson
9. Grundstrom
10. Borgman
11. Carrick
12. Timashov
13. Bracco
14. Rosen
15. Moore
16. Brown
17. Korshkov
18. Engvall
19. Sparks
20. Brooks
21. Dzierkals
22. Marchment
23. Rasanen
24. Nielsen
25. Woll
1. Matthews
2. Nylander
3. Marner
4. Rielly
5. Liljegren
6. Kapanen
7. Dermott
8. Sandin
9. Johnsson
10. Grundstrom
11. Borgman
12. Carrick
13. Timashov
14. Bracco
15. Durzi
16. Rosen
17. Moore
18. Brown
19. Der-Arguchintsev
20. Korshkov
21. Hollowell
22. Subban
23. Engvall
24. Brooks
25. Dzierkals

Again, I just plopped some names down.

Wrong.

3
If they cut 10 games from Andersen, and his decline began in March last year. Won't his decline just start in the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs? I mean he has to be able to play 75ish games to win a cup doesn't he?

Its a matter of not having enough off days to recover.  Playing 70 games in a 7 month stretch is harder than playing 70 games in a 8 month stretch.

Sure, but if he's getting to the brink and then has to play every other night for 8 weeks with random gaps between series. That's a lot. If he wore out after 60+ games and 20 playoff games it would be one thing. But to wear out with a month left in the season, if wear is the issue, I'm a little concerned.

I think you're missing the point.  If they can start the backup in 10 or so more games, Andersen theoretically wouldn't be at "the brink", and would be able to handle the playoffs more easily because he wouldn't be worn down.  It's not a total games started issue, it's a total games started in a more compressed time issue.

4
I think Andersen is a very good goalie but he suffererd a bit from fatigue down the stretch and into the playoffs. If Leafs can get a backup to play 25-30 games it'll go a long way to having Andersen fresh when the games count.

I just had a quick glance at NHL.com stats, and according to them, Andersen played the 3rd most games of any goalie in the league at 66.  This was third only to a tie between Hellebuyck and Talbot at 67 a piece.

Also, Andersen's save % took a pretty steep nosedive into .88 territory in March, which was well below the .91-.92 he was maintaining for most of the season, save a garbage October. 

So there might be some evidence of fatigue there, and most of the starters in the league (the good ones anyway) were 50+ games.  Having said that, 12 goalies played 60 or more.

So maybe there is some value in resting Andersen an extra 5-10 games over last season, given his drop off in March.  What kind of surprises me is that Babcock didn't play McElhinney more often, because he was actually pretty damn good.  Maybe he was injured, and they didn't want to aggravate something, I don't know.  It just didn't make much sense to ride Andersen so hard, they were in a comfortable playoff position.

More than a few of Babcock's lineup choices were inscrutable.

If McElhinney doesn't have his trust, then they need to get someone who does, because I agree, Andersen needs more time off.  I would even venture to say, in the league as it is now, it is more tiring to play goal than it was when Brodeur was playing essentially every game.  The pace is much faster, I'm guessing there is more over-the-royal-road passing, there's more puck-tracking (or whatever that techniques is called) etc.

Would Babs trust Sparks?  Who knows.

Yeah, that's why I was wondering if McElhinney had some lingering injury issues or something, because his numbers were solid, and so trust really shouldn't have been an issue...especially with where they were in the playoff race.

5
I think Andersen is a very good goalie but he suffererd a bit from fatigue down the stretch and into the playoffs. If Leafs can get a backup to play 25-30 games it'll go a long way to having Andersen fresh when the games count.

I just had a quick glance at NHL.com stats, and according to them, Andersen played the 3rd most games of any goalie in the league at 66.  This was third only to a tie between Hellebuyck and Talbot at 67 a piece.

Also, Andersen's save % took a pretty steep nosedive into .88 territory in March, which was well below the .91-.92 he was maintaining for most of the season, save a garbage October. 

So there might be some evidence of fatigue there, and most of the starters in the league (the good ones anyway) were 50+ games.  Having said that, 12 goalies played 60 or more.

So maybe there is some value in resting Andersen an extra 5-10 games over last season, given his drop off in March.  What kind of surprises me is that Babcock didn't play McElhinney more often, because he was actually pretty damn good.  Maybe he was injured, and they didn't want to aggravate something, I don't know.  It just didn't make much sense to ride Andersen so hard, they were in a comfortable playoff position.

6
All Sports But Hockey / Re: Raptors close to acquiring Kawhi Leonard
« on: July 18, 2018, 07:59:30 PM »
Can he skate backwards even a little bit and does he shoot right?


7
All Sports But Hockey / Re: Raptors close to acquiring Kawhi Leonard
« on: July 18, 2018, 04:41:55 PM »


Kuh - Why


How do you pronounce this Leonard's first name?

That's ridiculous.  I thought it was Cow-eee, and I think I should be right.

8
All Sports But Hockey / Re: Raptors close to acquiring Kawhi Leonard
« on: July 18, 2018, 03:52:10 PM »
How do you pronounce this Leonard's first name?

9
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« on: July 18, 2018, 01:45:35 PM »
Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

While I was all aboard trading JvR, Bozak, etc., at this past deadline, I disagree about Gardiner. For the guys we let walk this summer, it didn't appear as though the intention was to ever really attempt to retain them. I don't think that will be true with Gardiner. Unless he makes it crystal clear he has zero intention of even considering extending his time as a Leaf (which seems unlikely), you hold on to him as long as you can to get as much time to negotiate a new contract. If you can't come to an agreement, so be it - but, you're not holding on to a player you don't see is part of the future, like the team did with JvR, Bozak, etc. You're giving yourself the best opportunity to retain a player you want as part of your team long-term.

Not the first time you've been wrong, won't be the last...

I think if you've got to spend the season convincing Gardiner to stay, after he's been here for like 8 years, you've probably done something wrong.  But regardless, in my mind, to be a long-term contender, you've got to turn these expiring assets that have substantial value. Given the parity of the league, and associated odds of ultimate success (Cup), you need to maximize your return on assets to make sure you stay in contending position for many seasons, even if it costs you a little in the SR.

10
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« on: July 17, 2018, 02:45:09 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

11
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« on: July 17, 2018, 01:57:27 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

12
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« on: July 17, 2018, 12:52:48 PM »
I think Gardiner's skill set is important to the team's fortunes this year, and he certainly isn't easily replaceable.

He had a bad game 7, really bad, and may have been a big reason they lost that game, but I don't think he's the reason they lost the series. 

I'm very curious to see how Dubas handles the situation of Gardiner coming up on UFA.

13
An updated view of Marincin's work will explain why some of us feel he has a place on our NHL roster.

My opinion is that I've seen enough of Marincin's work in the actual NHL to say that I don't think he's good enough for a prominent role on this team, given the goal this season.  I'd feel more comfortable with Josh Leivo playing 5 minutes a game on the fourth line than I would be Marincin or Holl playing 15.

I'm blaming Polak-type playstyle, actually, of which he is representative. The team looked good when the defense could hold the puck a little bit longer to make a clean pass than it did just bombing it out of the zone for a couple of icings.

Can't you say that about every team in the league though?

Please name some options for acquisition that would actually be worth acquiring without costing a roster player; I'm open to transactions that provide value. Right now I only see options that are cost-prohibitive or non-needlemovers. I'd argue our right side D these last couple of seasons were only known for 'playing strong' and couldn't do enough of the other things.

I'm saying that it's going to cost them a good roster player, maybe 2 to get the salaries to jive.  I have no idea who is available, I'm not an NHL GM.  What I'm arguing is that Dubas needs to find a way to upgrade this glaring hole(s) in the roster.  Good thing for him he's got some nice pieces up front to dangle as currency.

14
Holl was the Marlies' 1D and got the Rielly treatment: only even strength against top lines and PK. In spite of that deployment, he was the highest scoring defenseman on the team.

He got the Rielly treatment in the AHL.  I'm not saying that he's going to be bad, I'm saying it's not likely he's good enough to be good in the NHL, and especially on a team that has sights on a deep run this season.  I'd rather them trade a nice forward asset, or 2, for a nice RHD asset, then if by some miracle Holl can play a decent NHL shift, they'll have some depth.

15
I can't speak for Coco, but I liked Seth Griffith, so...

TJ Brennan's issue was he couldn't skate and also had no defensive instinct. Sure as heck could shoot the puck in the net when he had time and space though. Except that we don't need that.

Sure, but Marincin got beat on the regular in the NHL, so they shipped him to the A last time.  He wasn't on the roster for his PP skills.

It really comes down to how I'd prefer the team to play defense, i.e. try not to. So guys like Holl and Marincin, who have no/poor track record in the NHL are still value-add options over Roman Polak (and arguably Ron Hainsey forcing top minutes nightly) just by virtue of being able to do things like skate, play a gap that slows down attackers, hold the puck, pass the puck to a forward. With our forward group, that's literally all they need to do as a defenseman to be successful.

Oh good, we're still blaming Polak for all the defense problems...and we're suggesting that guys that played in the AHL last year are better options...and as Frog said, maybe we should be shooting a little higher than "they might be better than Polak".

On the Cap side of things, I don't think you need a top flight 22-25 min RHD (they're like 7-10M) when you have a small fleet of 1-5M puck fetchers with strong skating skills and heads up passing. The game the Leafs play is only dependent on the defense for stopping/slowing entries, exiting the DZ, keeping the puck in the OZ, and being in position to tie up sticks in the DZ.

Well, I don't think you need a $7m -$10m guy to upgrade you from an AHL player.  But more importantly, this "play more offense and you won't need to play defense" crap doesn't jive with what zone times are on the average, even on the best of teams.  You still need guys that can play strong at both ends of the ice, and the Leafs don't have enough of those guys on the RHS defense position. 

We need to remember that this team lost one of the best PP goal guys in the league, and although adding Tavares certainly is an upgrade, I'm not sure it's enough to get this team out of the first round, especially if the plan is to run career AHLers on the blueline.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 256