First hire for Treliving, replacing the departed Spencer Carbury with Bruce Boudreau. 😎

I don't want Boudreau's career to end the way it did in Vancouver.

Certainly not the first time it's been suggested for Boudreau. Even before he was picked up by Vancouver there were calls to make him an assistant. I feel like Treliving would need to commit to Keefe with an extension first as well though. It would be a massive distraction and not fair to anyone if a possible Boudreau promotion was looming over Keefe all season long.

Having a very, very experienced AC could be a good thing for Keefe too. As far as I remember his assistants have generally been either somewhat new or very new to the NHL as well.

I'm certainly not against it if he is open to it.  I think Boudreau's career isn't exactly one that screams "coach to get a team to win a Cup" but as an assistant he would be an interesting guy to work with the offensive talents of the team.

I think regardless of whether Keefe is going to be here long term the Leafs should be extending him with a 1-2 year extension at least.  Having a lame duck coach just seems like a really bad idea given the current situation the Leafs are in (unless Matthews hates his guts and that would impact him signing a longer term extension and then I'd jettison him in a heartbeat).

Jaques Martin as an assistant to Sullivan in Pittsburgh worked out okay.

It's been an up and down performance in Calgary for sure. He wouldn't be the hire I'd make but I'm willing to give him a shot. I think he probably had to deal with an equal or more meddling board in Calgary. I also don't think he's exactly gunshy on a deal, so I think taking a chance isn't the issue, it's if he'll take the right one.

I agree that his results in Calgary are largely uninspiring, but, it's not like he didn't make major moves to try to improve the team. There a number of big trades, some impactful UFA signings, etc. He was definitely trying to win. He just didn't succeed. Whether that was on him or ownership foisting a coach upon him, or a variety of other factors is hard to say. I don't think he's the best GM, but I think his track record is being seen in more of a negative light than it probably should be. He put together a really good, competitive team in Calgary. If they were able to convert on their chances at even an average rate and got reasonable to good goaltending out of Markstrom, he'd still be with the Flames. Their xGF and xGA numbers were excellent (7th and 4th respectively). It's just that their shooting percentage was the worst in the league and their save percentage wasn't much better.

I appreciate your point of view.  Still can't help but feel that the garlic pan bread with cheese from Jack Astor's was ordered, and we ended up with melba toast.

You know MLSE, I didn't miss the Brian Burke years as much as you think I did.

I don't love the hire, but I don't think it'll be Brian Burke bad. Funny enough Dubas probably focused more on "truculence" than Treliving has the past few years.

For me it's less about what Brian Burke did, and more of just the lack of a plan or execution of one.  I look at it this way.  By all accounts, I believed that Dubas was trying to win a cup desperately.  He appeared to be learning each year and would apply that knowledge to what he wanted to do with the team the next.  I think the trade deadline this year was an example of where he may have updated his approach in the hopes of giving the team a better shot at winning the cup. 

Was Dubas perfect? No far from it.  For example, in the bubble year, where he made no moves at the deadline because he didn't think the team had much of a chance.  Okay, if you believe that, then why not trade some pieces for the future?  You knew you were going to lose Barrie for nothing.  Move him out and get something for him if you feel the team isn't where it needs to be for a long playoff run.  Still, I believed that Dubas was invested in winning a cup.

Do I think Treliving is invested in winning a cup?  I think he would like to win a cup, but he lasted 9 years in Calgary with middling results.  It strikes me as the type of guy who knows how not to rock a boat, and if that is the case, is he really the type of GM that is going to take a chance to try and put this team over the top to win a cup?

You know MLSE, I didn't miss the Brian Burke years as much as you think I did.

For a player with a big question mark as far as elevating his game in the playoffs why do we have to pay him more than McD or MacK?

Because that is how finances work in sports.  Look at the NFL.  There is no better QB in the game than Mahomes, but every year, the QB that is up for renewal makes more, because inflation exists.

It's not about whose better when it gets to the financial situation.  This is their job.  I could see a comment from Matthews like "Hey you have to pay me more because I have to put up with unknown people saying derogatory things about me and questioning my desire to play this game on a nightly basis". 

MacKinnon is at 12.6M x 8

I see Matthews taking 13.4M min for 4 years so he can snag one more big contract upon that expiry when there is also more clarity about the cap going up. He'd be 31 at that time and probably 16-18M AAV at that point.

So great that we won't get a reasonable aav or term when most other teams seem to get it from their stars.

I think reasonable in either of those is relative to whether you focus on the negatives or the positives of the deal.  I think if the term is short that is great.  You don't know what state a player is going to be in after 8 years of hockey.  Even a player like Matthews can fall off.  You sign him for 4 years, see where he is at, and then assess.  Also, with the last deal being signed before he is 35, he can retire, and his cap comes off the books.  I actually think that shorter terms on deals are better, and it takes a player that is confident in their abilities to sign them.  It's the GM's problem to resign him.  Maybe the Leafs trade him in his early 30's. 

As for the AAV, what would Matthews get on the open market?  If he signs at 13.4 I think that is less than what he would get if he went to free agency, so that seems reasonable to me.  It depends on if you compare it to what he could get versus what you would like him to sign for.   

Negotiating with UFAs can't happen until July 1 except they have some sort of grace period now, I'm sure players like Austin are essentially signed before July 1.

July 1 is an opening for future UFAs to think about where they want to play next and know that if they don't sign anywhere(except Winterpeg) in NHL can be their home. 

I'm confused. Matthews isn't a UFA, so what relevance does July 1 have? He'll be an UFA on July 1, 2024. The team and Matthews can negotiate whenever the hell they want

No trade clause kicks in.

I want a GM that forechecks hard, clears the front of the net, and makes the timely save in a game.

I want a GM who gets up early, stays up late, with uninterrupted prosperity, and who uses a machete to cut through red tape.

I want a GM with a short cap debt and a long........playoff bracket.

I want a GM that forechecks hard, clears the front of the net, and makes the timely save in a game.

I don't know who they'll hire, but I think it's a pretty safe bet they won't be going off the board.  I kind of liked your suggestion, herman, but I don't see anything remotely like that happening.

Nope. And, as much as I get the desire for someone fresh and new, I think bringing in someone with experience but who hasn't been around since forever feels like the right balance - someone new enough that they're not super set in their ways, have a more modern approach to the game and players, etc., but experienced enough to know how to handle star players, the grind of an NHL season, and so on.

So a unicorn?

I guess Carolina need to sack their GM and trade their core players now.

Interestingly, the whole forward group (save Kotkaniemi) are on expiring deals this coming season.

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/hurricanes

Svechnikov too.

Massive hypothetical here...

But say Shanahan and Dubas were both to take a sensible pill and Dubas was reinstated as GM. How would you feel about that?

Think I'd settle for that personally.

I think it would remind some of us olde timey fans of the time Roger Neilson was fired, then rehired, and asked to coach with a bag over his head.

[if accurate]

All the personnel decisions ended two months ago - at the deadline. Whatever thoughts he might have had on autonomy or the decision approval process should have been pretty well developed.  And Dubas couldn't figure that out until last Monday? Really?

This is just a hypothetical... but let's say there was a trade that Dubas felt would make the Leafs a better team at the deadline or before and one way or another it got blocked. Either through Shanahan directly saying no or due to time running out on a deal because of Toronto's current chain of command when it comes to big deals (Dubas -> Shanahan -> board -> back to Shanahan - > back to Dubas). Let's say Dubas is watching the Florida series and the entire time thinking "man, if I was able to acquire so and so he could have made a drastic difference in winning this series and potentially winning the Cup".

Would it not be at least somewhat reasonable for Dubas to think he's justified in attempting to re-open the "autonomy" conversation one last time post-elimination?

This is a pretty extreme hypothetical obviously but I do think it's not completely unreasonable for Dubas' thoughts on what his next contract should and should not include would change over the course of a playoff run. Just like it would be possible for the Leafs to have ignored their post-deadline contract talks with Dubas and just fired him if the Leafs got swept 4-0 in the first round. Nothing was set in stone at that point.

Dubas was paid millions of dollars for nearly five years as General Manager after being paid well to serve about four years as assistant GM. The part I'm having trouble with on the autonomy/decision making process complaint/concern (if accurate) is: "Why did you, Dubas, wait 4+5 years to raise the grievance?" If he answered "I was just following my contract", I'd fire him on the spot. No company has perfect procedures, job descriptions and employment contracts. The General Manager has the responsibility to sort out those issues and not wait 4+5 years to resolve them when his contract comes up. If that is what went down, I'd have zero sympathy for Dubas as it is a pretty clear cut dereliction of his duty.

If they had been in discussions for two months as Shanahan maintained and Dubas lobbed a 50% increase in pay last Thursday, I'd be put off by that too. Should have come much sooner.

As for Shanahan, I'm not too thrilled with him either. He needed to establish a date they needed a GM decision by so they had time to go through a hiring process. That date was somewhere close to shortly after the trade deadline. "We need a finalized contract with you, Kyle, by the middle of March. If not, we have to move on." Shanahan messed up too.

Just to echo this - having a drop dead date, and planning for the worst are two things that seem like huge gaps here. It's management 101 regardless of your industry. Shanahan lost all control of the situation without those things in place - and unless there's way more to the story than we're being told in terms of how far down the road they are in a GM search, I'd have some serious concerns about Shanahan's "plan" if I were his boss.

As a fan, it feels like we're back in sideshow land without a competent person at the wheel.

While this situation wasn't handled properly, I don't know if I would go as far as to call Shanahan incompetent.  He handled the transition from Lou to Dubas well in that he stood by what his original intentions were.  We all knew the intention was that Lou would mentor Dubas and then Dubas would take over.  Just because there were those that wanted the job that Dubas got, Shanahan still stood by his initial plan.

I think this got personal somewhere and that caused Shanahan and Dubas to act out of character.  Shanahan looks worse right now because he aired the dirty laundry and Dubas took more of a high road.

At the end of the day this was a mistake, but assuming that this organization is just going to keep on making mistakes because of this might be a bit premature.

I could somewhat understand the concern levels if Dubas like took his entire family on a 2-week vacation to Costa Rica to ponder his future or something, but the dude was back in the office working on Wednesday. That comment was way overblown.

It's just another example of how the fanbase creates problems for itself. Fans pay way too much attention to clean out the locker room day so if something is said that upsets them it's attached significance because they care so much about clean out the locker room day. Why would anyone care what gets said on that day if it doesn't then conform to anything that actually happens?

If I could be a relatively informed fan without knowing the GM's name it would make no difference to me. I'm a fan of the hockey team, not the corporate structure.

I'm not even a fan of the team.  I just love this forum, so I watch them so I can contribute.

I hear you.  Not many hockey sites got people quoting John Maynard Keynes — and it's relevant, too, not just name-dropping to demonstrate you went to college.

Wait, you went to college?

I could somewhat understand the concern levels if Dubas like took his entire family on a 2-week vacation to Costa Rica to ponder his future or something, but the dude was back in the office working on Wednesday. That comment was way overblown.

It's just another example of how the fanbase creates problems for itself. Fans pay way too much attention to clean out the locker room day so if something is said that upsets them it's attached significance because they care so much about clean out the locker room day. Why would anyone care what gets said on that day if it doesn't then conform to anything that actually happens?

If I could be a relatively informed fan without knowing the GM's name it would make no difference to me. I'm a fan of the hockey team, not the corporate structure.

I'm not even a fan of the team.  I just love this forum, so I watch them so I can contribute.