Leafs claim Tim Erixon off waivers

[L K]

Yeah. I've been about as critical of MLSE as it's humanly possible to be but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that things were better when the team was owned by a lunatic who would make terrible trades out of spite.

Ballard joined the Leafs in 58.  They won 4 cups during his reign.  Therefore Ballard was awesome and MLSE is not.   Let's just brush aside the rapists he employed and covered up.  Let's ignore the fraud, criminal charges, the fact that he staged a coup to get ownership in the first place, etc.

I understand that we tend to whitewash bad things over time but at no point in the history or future of this organization will the Ballard era ever be "better" than any other point.

[Nik]

I credit being a fan in the 80s as the reason that this decade-long debacle hasn't deterred me from being a Leaf fan now.  I can't foresee how things could ever be that bad again.  On the flip side, at least tickets were more affordable in those days, and I did enjoy the Gardens.  I've never been to the ACC for a game as I don't live there anymore, but it seems like a pretty sterile environment.  Aside from the whole winning thing, it reminds me of the difference between watching the Jays at CNE stadium vs Skydome.

As someone who's been to the ACC a fair number of times I'd tell you that it's really just a matter of perspective. The ACC is "sterile" to some extent but that has much more to do with design than it does with people. It's a fairly cookie cutter modern arena and doesn't have the idiosyncratic appeal the Gardens did but I guarantee you could find people saying the same thing in Boston or Chicago or LA or any city where a beloved old arena was replaced by a slick surfaced place designed to get people to empty their pockets.

[LuncheonMeat]

I credit being a fan in the 80s as the reason that this decade-long debacle hasn't deterred me from being a Leaf fan now.  I can't foresee how things could ever be that bad again.  On the flip side, at least tickets were more affordable in those days, and I did enjoy the Gardens.  I've never been to the ACC for a game as I don't live there anymore, but it seems like a pretty sterile environment.  Aside from the whole winning thing, it reminds me of the difference between watching the Jays at CNE stadium vs Skydome.

As someone who's been to the ACC a fair number of times I'd tell you that it's really just a matter of perspective. The ACC is "sterile" to some extent but that has much more to do with design than it does with people. It's a fairly cookie cutter modern arena and doesn't have the idiosyncratic appeal the Gardens did but I guarantee you could find people saying the same thing in Boston or Chicago or LA or any city where a beloved old arena was replaced by a slick surfaced place designed to get people to empty their pockets.

That's a good point.  I suppose they're just different, and more or less appealing depending on what you're after.

I read an entertaining piece in the NY Times yesterday about Nassau Coliseum.  On one hand you've got an experience where the stadium is loud and you're close to the action, but maybe it's missing some of the creature comforts and perks of a modern stadium.  I'm guessing when the team moves you'll have a good split of people arguing for/against which provides a better experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/sports/hockey/nassau-coliseum-offers-little-room-for-tv-crews-or-visiting-backup-goalies.html

[cw]

Yeah. I've been about as critical of MLSE as it's humanly possible to be but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that things were better when the team was owned by a lunatic who would make terrible trades out of spite.

Ballard joined the Leafs in 58.  They won 4 cups during his reign.  Therefore Ballard was awesome and MLSE is not.   Let's just brush aside the rapists he employed and covered up.  Let's ignore the fraud, criminal charges, the fact that he staged a coup to get ownership in the first place, etc.

I understand that we tend to whitewash bad things over time but at no point in the history or future of this organization will the Ballard era ever be "better" than any other point.

Ballard didn't take control until Stafford Smythe died in the early '70s. They didn't win "4 cups during his reign. "

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I'm with Busta and Nik on this one, this isn't nearly as bad as it was. There's a team here willing to spend to the cap, and it looks as though there's a better plan in place now.

What I think might be particularly difficult is getting through the 15-16 season...oh man, that's going to be ugly.

That last part especially is what has me worried. The media right now is waxing lyrical about how good it is that they are finally rebuilding.

I get the impression that when they are thoroughly embarrassed regularly over the next 18 months the tide will turn and they will start to beat them up about it and second guess every prospect that isn't in the NHL already.

Then you'll have the talk radio phone-in mouth breathers repeating everything Steve Simmons wrote that morning.

This will create another unbearable situation for everyone in the organization to deal with. I just hope they are strong enough to stay the course and call out the media when they start their crap.

[Nik]

That last part especially is what has me worried. The media right now is waxing lyrical about how good it is that they are finally rebuilding.

I get the impression that when they are thoroughly embarrassed regularly over the next 18 months the tide will turn and they will start to beat them up about it and second guess every prospect that isn't in the NHL already.

I think the issue is probably going to be what sort of team we see over those next 18 months. We'll almost definitely see a bad one, sure, but is it going to be a bad one with players like McKegg and Connor Brown and Stuart Percy looking feisty? Or is it going to be one where jobs are given to uninspiring veterans because there's not much in the way of NHL prospects within the system?

I think fans will be alright with a young, hardworking team that occasionally has their lunch handed to them. If, however, we get more evidence that absolutely everything has been bungled the last few years it'll probably sour some people.

[LuncheonMeat]

That last part especially is what has me worried. The media right now is waxing lyrical about how good it is that they are finally rebuilding.

I get the impression that when they are thoroughly embarrassed regularly over the next 18 months the tide will turn and they will start to beat them up about it and second guess every prospect that isn't in the NHL already.

I think the issue is probably going to be what sort of team we see over those next 18 months. We'll almost definitely see a bad one, sure, but is it going to be a bad one with players like McKegg and Connor Brown and Stuart Percy looking feisty? Or is it going to be one where jobs are given to uninspiring veterans because there's not much in the way of NHL prospects within the system?

I think fans will be alright with a young, hardworking team that occasionally has their lunch handed to them. If, however, we get more evidence that absolutely everything has been bungled the last few years it'll probably sour some people.

I think the media might actually spin this as the Leafs doing the right thing for once, and cut them some slack.  That's not a certainty, but it wouldn't surprise me.  Of course, if the Leafs make poor draft selections that could change quickly.

[Highlander]

I agree with Nik, I would rather see the Marlies +  than some retreads.  As long as they lose while fighting to win, then we can wait and see the rebuild progress and be part of the process.

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That last part especially is what has me worried. The media right now is waxing lyrical about how good it is that they are finally rebuilding.

I get the impression that when they are thoroughly embarrassed regularly over the next 18 months the tide will turn and they will start to beat them up about it and second guess every prospect that isn't in the NHL already.

I think the issue is probably going to be what sort of team we see over those next 18 months. We'll almost definitely see a bad one, sure, but is it going to be a bad one with players like McKegg and Connor Brown and Stuart Percy looking feisty? Or is it going to be one where jobs are given to uninspiring veterans because there's not much in the way of NHL prospects within the system?

I think fans will be alright with a young, hardworking team that occasionally has their lunch handed to them. If, however, we get more evidence that absolutely everything has been bungled the last few years it'll probably sour some people.

Couldn't it be argued that they'd be better off leaving those kids with the Marlies to insulate them, let them develop fully and that running a bunch of retreads for the next 30 months or so with the Leafs will be the means to an end?

[Nik]

Couldn't it be argued that they'd be better off leaving those kids with the Marlies to insulate them, let them develop fully and that running a bunch of retreads for the next 30 months or so with the Leafs will be the means to an end?

Well, McKegg is 22. He'll be 23 when camp opens. At some point I genuinely think it's better for a player's development to be in the NHL and 23 is about the age where either a guy is a NHL player or he's not. Brown's younger, sure, but even still he'll be 22 next year.   I really don't think it's in anyone's interest to keep these guys in the AHL until they're 25.

I don't personally think being on a bad team hurts a promising young player and like I said I think the market/media will actually be pretty easy on a team full of young players trying their hardest so I don't know that there's a lot you need to protect them from.

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I understand that, although Detroit might disagree.

Do you think there is any truth to a players development being stunted by being on a perennial loser ala Edmonton.

Personally I think there might be something to it, but not as much as the media claim.

[Nik]

I understand that, although Detroit might disagree.

Do you think there is any truth to a players development being stunted by being on a perennial loser ala Edmonton.

Personally I think there might be something to it, but not as much as the media claim.

I know it's a joke but, seriously, Detroit is pretty consistent on that too. 22 or 23(occasionally 24) seems to be, in just about all cases, when they make their decision on whether or not to give a guy a full time NHL job.

I couldn't say about the other thing. It's probably possible, sure, but my guess is that it's a much bigger concern on a team like the Leafs right now than it would be on a team that was building for the future and competing hard every night.

[KadriFan]

So how has Erixon been playing?   I haven't seen them play for awhile.  Hoping he he and Sill are keepers

[CarltonTheBear]

So how has Erixon been playing?   I haven't seen them play for awhile.  Hoping he he and Sill are keepers

He's only played 4 games so far, sat a bunch of times. He's played limited minutes with a different defensive partner in each game and 3 of them haven't been NHL calibre (Brewer, Granberg, MacWilliam), the other was playing with a soon-to-be season ending injury (Robidas). So while his results haven't been great he hasn't exactly been put in a position to succeed. Given the options available one thing that should absolutely happen in the remaining games is him being put back in the line-up and played in a top-4 role alongside Rielly. May as well see what he's got.

[Potvin29]

So how has Erixon been playing?   I haven't seen them play for awhile.  Hoping he he and Sill are keepers

He's only played 4 games so far, sat a bunch of times. He's played limited minutes with a different defensive partner in each game and 3 of them haven't been NHL calibre (Brewer, Granberg, MacWilliam), the other was playing with a soon-to-be season ending injury (Robidas). So while his results haven't been great he hasn't exactly been put in a position to succeed. Given the options available one thing that should absolutely happen in the remaining games is him being put back in the line-up and played in a top-4 role alongside Rielly. May as well see what he's got.

Are they just playing Brewer to get him to 1000 games?