The Core

[hobarth]

I was watching some YouTube today, it has been said by can't remember who that Schenn and O'Rielly were surprised by the locker room dynamics of the Leafs, the room is fractured whereas from all my previous readings TO's team was/is supposedly very close.

I don't know how important it is for a team to be close  but if what I've seen on YouTube is true, leadership is still an issue as it has been for 20 years.

Who was the last person on TO that both the fans and players thought were effective leaders, Killer/Sundin/Roberts?

[Peter D.]

What's every ones acceptable number for Matthews?  I would do 8 years $100 million. 

He can get more with the more years he signs.  I'm okay with $13 million a year even though it'll put him about McDavid and MacKinnon, which I don't think he should be the highest paid player if all things were equal.

If he is looking for a shorter contract, then less money.

Still boggles my mind that Dubas gave him the money he did on his last contract and only got 5 years out of it.

[hobarth]

$13 mil. per means he's aware how much his contract with others has hindered TO's ability to be Cup competitive.

[mr grieves]

I was watching some YouTube today, it has been said by can't remember who that Schenn and O'Rielly were surprised by the locker room dynamics of the Leafs, the room is fractured whereas from all my previous readings TO's team was/is supposedly very close.

I don't know how important it is for a team to be close  but if what I've seen on YouTube is true, leadership is still an issue as it has been for 20 years.

Who was the last person on TO that both the fans and players thought were effective leaders, Killer/Sundin/Roberts?

Someone on YouTube sounds pretty thin as evidence goes, but it's something I've wondered about as the team's largely killed its middle class and is structured around a handful of massively compensated superstars with long term commitments and the rotating cast of help that come and go each off season. I know there's nothing exceptional, or unwise, about investing the most money and term in stars, but I wonder if the Leafs have become a limit case and, if so, whether that has any negative impacts on the team or those superstars themselves.

[azzurri63]

https://www.tsn.ca/video/hayes-there-s-a-legacy-play-here-with-auston-matthews~2702990

100% agree with Hayes.

[Joe]

The only thing I'll say, is look how long it took for Detroit to get their shit together with their core. They were ready to trade Yzerman.

[Rob]

Watching Vegas Vs Florida I don't think Leafs have what it takes to win a cup.  I'd keep Matthews, let Tavares's deal expire and see what he wants from there.  Mitch and Willy are great players but again, watching the SCF it's pretty clear how the Leafs are built as of right now they have no chance. 

[L K]

The only thing I'll say, is look how long it took for Detroit to get their shit together with their core. They were ready to trade Yzerman.

Big difference with Detroit was there wasn't a cap.  2003-2004 the Red Wings payroll was 77 million against a league average payroll of 44 million.  In 98 it was 48 million against a league average of 29 million. 

The Red Wings had the advantage to keep spending money well above the average team.  The salary cap makes sticking with a stationary roster a lot harder if the team isn't successful because its harder to augment around the team.

[Nik]

The only thing I'll say, is look how long it took for Detroit to get their shit together with their core. They were ready to trade Yzerman.

That's the thing. People seem focused on this entirely false dichotomy of either thinking a group of 4 players is "good enough" to win a cup or not but as basically every champion proves, it's more about building the team behind your big group. No matter how extreme the example. The Oilers didn't just put together Gretzky, Messier, Coffey and Kurri and instantly win cups. They won when they started being the best full team in the league and the Islanders weren't. Detroit won when they had great depth. The Blackhawks needed terrific players on their 3rd line and so on and so on.

No group of 4 players is good enough to win without enough behind them and I think a lot of people are kidding themselves if they think there's some trade out there that's really going to fix the problem with the Leafs. 

[Nik]

Big difference with Detroit was there wasn't a cap.  2003-2004 the Red Wings payroll was 77 million against a league average payroll of 44 million.  In 98 it was 48 million against a league average of 29 million. 

The Red Wings had the advantage to keep spending money well above the average team.  The salary cap makes sticking with a stationary roster a lot harder if the team isn't successful because its harder to augment around the team.

But that's kind of countered by the way free agency was different. Detroit drafted and traded their way to the team they had. The teams that win the cup today do the same. The difference is really more about how long you can keep a team together, not how the team is assembled in the first place.

The idea that the Leafs may need to move a big salary to have more flexibility to rebuild is a fair one(although I think people think that's a quicker fix than it realisitcally is) but that's an entirely different argument than what tends to be made about these 4 which is that there's something inherently lacking in them that's holding the Leafs back. That's the comparison to Detroit. People said the same thing there.

[herman]

The idea that the Leafs may need to move a big salary to have more flexibility to rebuild is a fair one

There are two 'windows' for this to happen

One is right now, before July 1: trading Mitch Marner

The second window is when Tavares expires and likely re-signs for less (like <5M, or even straight into Spezza-level discount), but a lot of that savings would be eaten up by Marner's demands.

The in between year, when we have final year of Marner/Tavares + new-Matthews/new-Nylander will be ass-butt, but Brodie/Murray/Muzzin (5M/4.49M/5.235M) comes off if they're still here and you definitely still need a Brodie replacement. The expected Cap spike might soften that blow.

The current needs are a legit 2C to maximize Tavares or if he moves to line 1, someone who can drive ride shotgun with Nylander/Marner.

Skill-wise, I don't think there is anything holding back these 4 from producing in the playoffs; the 'softness' that most people talk about is their generally passive approach to physicality, which I think Treliving has already started to talk about re: personnel and coaching, for which Marner takes the biggest dip.

[Nik]

Skill-wise, I don't think there is anything holding back these 4 from producing in the playoffs; the 'softness' that most people talk about is their generally passive approach to physicality, which I think Treliving has already started to talk about re: personnel and coaching, for which Marner takes the biggest dip.

Well, no. Because we have seen them produce in the playoffs. As we should now just take as a given any good player can run into hot goaltending.

But beyond that there's just a more fundamental problem of the talent level of the team. Trade one of Nylander/Marner/Matthews and yes, you're no longer top heavy salary wise but you're also not very good at the top either. You're a deeper team without big talent at the top and the track record of teams like that winning isn't very good. The whole idea that trading one of those three doesn't effectively necessitate a rebuild is the quite frankly insane notion that some team out there is going to be offering up someone who's comparable talent wise but also cheaper but also better suited to playoff hockey.

That's a crazy notion itself but it still doesn't solve the longer term issues with depth, defense and goaltending.

[hobarth]

If TO traded say Nylander, they could get a roster player, 2nd line capable, a top prospect, and a significant draft choice, that's not an unrealistic haul for him.

So what could we be talking about:

 From the NYR-Chytil, a decent prospect and their 1st rounder from this draft.

TO might not be better right away or even next year but TO might have the assets to improve the team enough by the 3rd year to expect better playoff results than we are currently seeing. Since Chytil makes $4.5 mil. per TO would possibly have an extra $5.5 mil. per to spend on a FA since I expect Nylander can expect to be signed for around $10 mil. per. The rebuild while keeping Mitch and Austin would be enhanced by the 3rd year because JT's contract will have expired.

Having Nylander's talent level would be nice going into the future but I think St.L. won a Cup with only 2 significant players surrounded by outstanding depth.

What I see now is TO getting older/slower without true progress, looking to the future without an entire overhaul might be the best option. 

[Nik]

TO might not be better right away or even next year but TO might have the assets to improve the team enough by the 3rd year to expect better playoff results than we are currently seeing. Since Chytil makes $4.5 mil. per TO would possibly have an extra $5.5 mil. per to spend on a FA since I expect Nylander can expect to be signed for around $10 mil. per. The rebuild while keeping Mitch and Austin would be enhanced by the 3rd year because JT's contract will have expired.

Having Nylander's talent level would be nice going into the future but I think St.L. won a Cup with only 2 significant players surrounded by outstanding depth. 

So the plan is to make a trade that probably makes the team worse for a few years but, by the end of it, they might be able to emulate the flukiest post-cap Cup winner?

Yeah, try selling Matthews and Marner on that.

[herman]

Skill-wise, I don't think there is anything holding back these 4 from producing in the playoffs; the 'softness' that most people talk about is their generally passive approach to physicality, which I think Treliving has already started to talk about re: personnel and coaching, for which Marner takes the biggest dip.

Well, no. Because we have seen them produce in the playoffs. As we should now just take as a given any good player can run into hot goaltending.

But beyond that there's just a more fundamental problem of the talent level of the team. Trade one of Nylander/Marner/Matthews and yes, you're no longer top heavy salary wise but you're also not very good at the top either. You're a deeper team without big talent at the top and the track record of teams like that winning isn't very good. The whole idea that trading one of those three doesn't effectively necessitate a rebuild is the quite frankly insane notion that some team out there is going to be offering up someone who's comparable talent wise but also cheaper but also better suited to playoff hockey.

That's a crazy notion itself but it still doesn't solve the longer term issues with depth, defense and goaltending.

Fair and valid point. I don't think there is any way of outright winning a Marner trade (unless McDavid?). Best case would be getting a more diverse mix to pad the upper middle depth chart and filling a dire hole with a prime or rising star centre (Larkin, Barzal, Petersson, Hintz tier). No one will hit Marner's ceiling individually, but on the aggregate could exceed his value.

Trading Marner before July 1 also probably sewers the Matthews negotiation (unless it's a slam-dunk upgrade. McDavid?).

Anyway, my main problems with Marner are in between his ears, and that, if fixable, has no salary cap restrictions.