Rielly

[Peter D.]

I think the Leafs need to re-sign Rielly and it?d be a huge mistake if they move on from him (especially if he just walks for free).

The D is pretty average as it is right now. I don?t even want to think about it if removing Rielly.

 

[hobarth]

I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.

So is the issue that Rielly isn't good and we should trade him or that Rielly isn't a #1 and is expected to play like one? And if it's the latter, is that on Rielly or the Leafs?

Even if Rielly is a really good #2 or #3 defenseman, trading him away creates a hole that can't magically be plugged for less money than what we figure Rielly will get.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.

So is the issue that Rielly isn't good and we should trade him or that Rielly isn't a #1 and is expected to play like one? And if it's the latter, is that on Rielly or the Leafs?

Even if Rielly is a really good #2 or #3 defenseman, trading him away creates a hole that can't magically be plugged for less money than what we figure Rielly will get.

Agree. I can see if Sandin or Dermott were poised to take over, and maybe by the deadline they'll be ready, but neither is ready now. Like Rielly or not, he does play a huge role on the team and eats a lot of minutes.

 

[L K]

I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.

So is the issue that Rielly isn't good and we should trade him or that Rielly isn't a #1 and is expected to play like one? And if it's the latter, is that on Rielly or the Leafs?

Even if Rielly is a really good #2 or #3 defenseman, trading him away creates a hole that can't magically be plugged for less money than what we figure Rielly will get.

Agree. I can see if Sandin or Dermott were poised to take over, and maybe by the deadline they'll be ready, but neither is ready now. Like Rielly or not, he does play a huge role on the team and eats a lot of minutes.

Also if Sandin really matches Reilly?s play I?m not sure I want to be selling Morgan at the deadline if our defense is playing that well as a unit.  I get not wanting to lose assets but the Leafs aren?t better next year without Rielly.  If Sandin is as good as advertised next year we should be hoping the team gets luck on their side and doesn?t get goalied in the first round again.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Other people have pointed it out but it's hard not to see how Edmonton set themselves up for this. By taking Keith's money they allowed Chicago to sign Jones for what they did and that bumps Nurse's price up too.

Really just some galaxy brain stuff from Holland this year.

I used to wonder how the Leafs could hire so many incompetent GMs in a row but I see Edmonton seems to be able to as well.

I think your assessment of Holland's outrageously bad handling of this is bang on.  Holland's last few years at Detroit was littered with some player contracts that were head scratchers as well.

After the last few seasons in Detroit, Edmonton then signs Holland for I think 5 years.  Crazy!

 

[Joe S.]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

 

[bustaheims]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

Stellick, in his one year as GM, wasn't exactly good - but was also thrown into the position without enough experience running a team at any level. Still, I'd call him an incompetent GM. McNamara was hit-and-miss, but was also GM during the worst of the Ballard years, so, he gets some benefit of the doubt. The rest were mostly run-of-the-mill GMs.

I think the issue is less that the Leafs have fired a bunch of incompetent GMs. It's more that they haven't really had many standouts in the position in the time frame we're talking about.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

Stellick, in his one year as GM, wasn't exactly good - but was also thrown into the position without enough experience running a team at any level. Still, I'd call him an incompetent GM. McNamara was hit-and-miss, but was also GM during the worst of the Ballard years, so, he gets some benefit of the doubt. The rest were mostly run-of-the-mill GMs.

I think the issue is less that the Leafs have fired a bunch of incompetent GMs. It's more that they haven't really had many standouts in the position in the time frame we're talking about.

McNamara gets a pass on everything. He convinced the Leafs to bring over 2 guys from Sweden way back when and also convinced them to come play in Toronto. Hammarstrom was a pretty good player but Salming was arguably the greatest Leaf ever and my favourite.

 

[bustaheims]

McNamara gets a pass on everything. He convinced the Leafs to bring over 2 guys from Sweden way back when and also convinced them to come play in Toronto. Hammarstrom was a pretty good player but Salming was arguably the greatest Leaf ever and my favourite.

Yeah. He did some good. It's just hard to look at the team's record during his tenure and not put at least some of that on him. Not all of it, obviously - bad coaching and a terrible owner played into things - but he's not blameless.

That being said, he was definitely much better as a scout - Salming was a great find, obviously, and his drafts were generally pretty good. It's the rest of the GM duties where he struggled some.

 

[Joe S.]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

Stellick, in his one year as GM, wasn't exactly good - but was also thrown into the position without enough experience running a team at any level. Still, I'd call him an incompetent GM. McNamara was hit-and-miss, but was also GM during the worst of the Ballard years, so, he gets some benefit of the doubt. The rest were mostly run-of-the-mill GMs.

I think the issue is less that the Leafs have fired a bunch of incompetent GMs. It's more that they haven't really had many standouts in the position in the time frame we're talking about.

That?s fair - that just predates my fandom.

 

[bustaheims]

That?s fair - that just predates my fandom.

It was the very early days of mine - especially McNamara - but, they also align with when the team really hit bottom in terms of how it was being run.

 

[Highlander]

That?s fair - that just predates my fandom.

It was the very early days of mine - especially McNamara - but, they also align with when the team really hit bottom in terms of how it was being run.

I have been around since Punch and Conn ran the team, they won 4 cups in 6 years.  Conn died and his son was not Conn and Harold was Harold, after Harold died they took a long time to find stable ownership.  In my estimation we have never had a better management structure than we have now.  I think the last drafts since Dubas took over have been very productive, yet that remains to be seen.  At some point we just have to go with the process and hopefully will break through in the next year.  The grass is not greener on the other side in most situations, I have found. If there is gross incompetence, then that is a different story.  But right now I think we have to stay the course.

 

[moon111]

Morgan Rielly is like trying to restore a car with panels that have holes in them.  It's better than nothing.  You'll have to supplement with other patch panels. You have to ask yourself if it's worth the extra work for everyone and if it wouldn't be cheaper to just get solid replacement if available.  It sucks to see so much work going into this and still seeing noticeable flaws.

 

[Bender]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

Burke was pretty freaking bad.

 

[hobarth]

My understanding was that JFJ thought correctly that TO needed to rebuild, he went to the executives and stated as much but they told him his only mandate was to win now. JFJ then made trades that sort of did make sense to better position the team to win but over the long haul weren't what was best for TO. BB had the same mandate, win now.

So did TO have bad GMs or impatient/impracticable owners with the bottom line being the only consideration.

 

[Joe S.]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

Burke was pretty freaking bad.

Say what you want about Burke, but he had a track record and he had a plan. Obviously it didn?t work out but he stuck to his plan. As opposed to say, JFJ who seemed completely random on how he ran the team.

 

[Bender]

Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.

I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.

Burke was pretty freaking bad.

Say what you want about Burke, but he had a track record and he had a plan. Obviously it didn?t work out but he stuck to his plan. As opposed to say, JFJ who seemed completely random on how he ran the team.

I'm not saying Burke wasn't better - he was. But to me having an idiotic and poorly executed plan isn't a heck of a lot better than random chance, and as much as we say Rask for Raycroft was bad the Kessel deal is pretty high up there also.

Not defending JFJ but the Burke/Nonis era was infuriatingly and needlessly bad when most fans knew we needed a rebuild and it never happened. Beyond drafting Naz & Rielly what did they really do in  7 years?

 

[Joe S.]

Just to be clear I agree with you and in no way am I defending the Burke era.

But I guess I could give him credit for these finds?


Van Riemsdyk
Bozak
Gardiner
Lupul (well briefly anyway)
MacArthur
Grabovski

Not that any of these guys put any team over the top but they were decent.

 

[Nik]

Just to be clear I agree with you and in no way am I defending the Burke era.

But I guess I could give him credit for these finds?


Van Riemsdyk
Bozak
Gardiner
Lupul (well briefly anyway)
MacArthur
Grabovski

Not that any of these guys put any team over the top but they were decent.

By that same token JFJ found guys like Kulemin, Stralman, Reimer, Gunnarsson, Komarov...again, no world beaters but some decent NHL players. Also, if you're inclined to give him credit for drafting Rask in the first place he probably found the one best eventual NHL player of either guy during his tenure.

I've written my "defense" of JFJ's tenure probably a million times and I won't bore people with it again but his draft record, considering where he was drafting most years, was ok.