Steve Stamkos?

[Redleaf]

Here's one. Discredit away...

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/09/15/ken-hitchcock-on-mike-babcock-his-team-is-going-to-do-a-lot-better-than-people-think/

 

[herman]

In a lineup with a dearth of talent, we were able to stave off any of the Babcock advantages, but still lose without being an embarrassment.

Between guys like JVR, Kadri, Gardiner, Rielly and so on I don't know that what really plagued the team was a horrible lack of talent. I don't think, for instance, it was talent that separated the Leafs from New Jersey or Carolina.

For those guys, Babcock seemed to coach with an eye towards development. He leaned hard early on Spaling and Hunwick (and Byron Froese!) while feeding Rielly defense-only assignments. Kadri ran into a PDO-black hole thankfully and managed to post up a bajillion shots with only 2 going in for the first half of the season (off-setting Komarov's hot start).

Honestly, I thought we had a better team talent-wise than NJ or Carolina (we had this conversation last preseason) and fully expected a bottom 5, but not last overall finish. Key injuries (JvR, Lupul), and critical moves to limit our scoring by focusing on defensive structure and personal player development helped us sink perfectly.

 

[bustaheims]

So, I've been doing some number crunching, and, based on what I've come up with, I'm really not sure the whole "Stamkos doesn't mess with the Leafs' cap" argument holds water.

With Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Soshnikov, Zaitsev and Hyman on the opening day roster, $750K 1 year contracts for the 3 RFA defencemen, $1M, 1 year for a backup goalie, the Cowen buyout credit, no performance bonuses included, and a rough estimate of a $73.2M cap (current cap with 2.5% growth - which was the last estimate I saw of what it might be after the PA uses the escalator) I put the Leafs at ~$7.8M in cap before they get into LTIR space.

Now, why is the pre-LTIR number important? Because it can't be used to cover performance bonuses. Unused LTIR space disappears at the end of the season - and, if you use any of it, you're considered to have hit the cap ceiling - and performance bonuses are awarded after. Depending on what Schedule B bonuses are in Matthews' contract, the Leafs will have somewhere between $3.6M and $5.6M in available bonuses on the roster next season  - and, if they go into LTIR space, every penny of those bonuses will be carried over into the 17/18. Now, obviously, it's unlikely every one of those bonuses are reached, but, I'd say it's not unreasonable to estimate that ~$2M of them will be.

So, with that, in 17/18, the Leafs would be looking at a total of roughly $4.5M in dead space, while still having a number of contracts that will require space for bonuses. That puts them at ~$46.75M committed (or ~$26.5M in space) to 9 forwards, 2 defenceman, and no goalies - still with $2.75M+ in potential bonuses (depending on whether or not other prospects make the roster), Zaitsev and Hyman needing new contracts (as well as the 3 RFA defencemen), and uncertain growth in the cap. That's a pretty tight squeeze, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nik]

Here's one. Discredit away...

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/09/15/ken-hitchcock-on-mike-babcock-his-team-is-going-to-do-a-lot-better-than-people-think/

That's emphatically not what you claimed. You said there were people saying hiring Babcock was putting the cart before the horse. That's Hitchcock saying Babcock is going to build a really good team and fast. Hitchcock sounds pretty pro-hiring Babcock there. You said there were people arguing the opposite.

 

[Frank E]

I'm good either way, though I don't see the urgency in signing him. And though it is wise to be cautious, I'm optimistic Matthews is going to be a top-5 centre (top 10 at least) within three years. In which case, Matthews/Kadri is a very good 1-2. I think the larger need is on defense and in goal.

I don't think Kadri is good enough in that spot if the goal is a championship.

I hope Matthews is the Crosby or Thornton, but I'm less optimistic that Kadri can be the Leafs' Malkin or Pavelski.  This is kind of the rationale that I'm using to justify the Stamkos signing.

I'm still hopeful that Nylander could be that guy.  It's early, but I just don't know if he's good enough either. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Between guys like JVR, Kadri, Gardiner, Rielly and so on I don't know that what really plagued the team was a horrible lack of talent. I don't think, for instance, it was talent that separated the Leafs from New Jersey or Carolina.

I'd say it was a combination of talent and luck. I mean between Kadri's terrible puckluck to start the year and JVR getting shut down halfway through, we probably really only had 2 months of the season where our top-2 forwards were playing at their best at the same time. And the lack of talent up front behind those guys wasn't nearly enough to make up for that.

In terms of TOI our top-5 most used forwards were Kadri, PAP, Komarov, Grabner, and Bozak. For Carolina it was Staal, Lindholm, Rask, Skinner, Staal. That's a big edge to them I think when it comes to talent.

 

[Redleaf]

I get where your going with this. I put together a list of names and you systematically discredit each one.

I am notorious for the way I apply scrutiny to claims.

Right. There were many many voices on radio shows I listen to that work in the game that said Babcock would have the Leafs team playing better than people expected and that it could hurt their rebuilding plans.

 

[Nik]

For those guys, Babcock seemed to coach with an eye towards development. He leaned hard early on Spaling and Hunwick while feeding Rielly defense-only assignments. Kadri ran into a PDO-black hole thankfully and managed to post up a bajillion shots with only 2 going in for the first half of the season (off-setting Komarov's hot start).

That's sort of my point though. It wasn't that Babcock's super awesome coaching ran into the team's lack of talent, it's that Babcock coached with the rebuild in mind. A lot of people on the board said that Babcock hated losing to the point that he wouldn't be on board with the tank but I think he showed that he's fully with the long term plan.

 

[Nik]

Right. There were many many voices on radio shows I listen to that work in the game that said Babcock would have the Leafs team playing better than people expected and that it could hurt their rebuilding plans.

Well, I certainly can't discredit people on the radio.

 

[Bill_Berg]

So, I've been doing some number crunching, and, based on what I've come up with, I'm really not sure the whole "Stamkos doesn't mess with the Leafs' cap" argument holds water.

With Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Soshnikov, Zaitsev and Hyman on the opening day roster, $750K 1 year contracts for the 3 RFA defencemen, $1M, 1 year for a backup goalie, the Cowen buyout credit, no performance bonuses included, and a rough estimate of a $73.2M cap (current cap with 2.5% growth - which was the last estimate I saw of what it might be after the PA uses the escalator) I put the Leafs at ~$7.8M in cap before they get into LTIR space.

Now, why is the pre-LTIR number important? Because it can't be used to cover performance bonuses. Unused LTIR space disappears at the end of the season - and, if you use any of it, you're considered to have hit the cap ceiling - and performance bonuses are awarded after. Depending on what Schedule B bonuses are in Matthews' contract, the Leafs will have somewhere between $3.6M and $5.6M in available bonuses on the roster next season  - and, if they go into LTIR space, every penny of those bonuses will be carried over into the 17/18. Now, obviously, it's unlikely every one of those bonuses are reached, but, I'd say it's not unreasonable to estimate that ~$2M of them will be.

So, with that, in 17/18, the Leafs would be looking at a total of roughly $4.5M in dead space, while still having a number of contracts that will require space for bonuses. That puts them at ~$46.75M committed (or ~$26.5M in space) to 9 forwards, 2 defenceman, and no goalies - still with $2.75M+ in potential bonuses (depending on whether or not other prospects make the roster), Zaitsev and Hyman needing new contracts (as well as the 3 RFA defencemen), and uncertain growth in the cap. That's a pretty tight squeeze, as far as I'm concerned.

And this is all without signing Stamkos?

 

[Redleaf]

Right. There were many many voices on radio shows I listen to that work in the game that said Babcock would have the Leafs team playing better than people expected and that it could hurt their rebuilding plans.

Well, I certainly can't discredit people on the radio.

But you'll try right?  : what is it, radio doesn't count because you cant find ways to discredit people who listen to it?

 

[Bill_Berg]

Right. There were many many voices on radio shows I listen to that work in the game that said Babcock would have the Leafs team playing better than people expected and that it could hurt their rebuilding plans.

Well, I certainly can't discredit people on the radio.

Maybe the tons of speculation was from callers calling in to these radio shows.

 

[herman]

For those guys, Babcock seemed to coach with an eye towards development. He leaned hard early on Spaling and Hunwick while feeding Rielly defense-only assignments. Kadri ran into a PDO-black hole thankfully and managed to post up a bajillion shots with only 2 going in for the first half of the season (off-setting Komarov's hot start).

That's sort of my point though. It wasn't that Babcock's super awesome coaching ran into the team's lack of talent, it's that Babcock coached with the rebuild in mind. A lot of people on the board said that Babcock hated losing to the point that he wouldn't be on board with the tank but I think he showed that he's fully with the long term plan.

I think I was trying to argue for your point, but used 'dearth of talent' as one of the reasons why Babcock was still the best option for us and wouldn't be able to drag us into the playoffs, rather than 'Babcock was on board with the long term plan and coached accordingly'.

Here's an article that insinuates what RedLeaf claimed earlier, but doesn't really cite where those voices came from.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/babcock-to-the-leafs-a-bad-thing-only-if-you-dont-like-winning/

So, let me get this straight: Mike Babcock, one of the most respected, productive hockey coaches alive today and the most sought-after free agent this summer ? player or otherwise ? signs with the Toronto Maple Leafs, and this is a negative? The Maple Leafs use some of the millions they?ve saved under the NHL?s salary cap system and establish instant credibility in a dressing room that needed a full fumigation after the the toxic 2014-15 campaign, and team president Brendan Shanahan somehow screwed this hire up?

The rest of the article highlights why he's the right choice to right the Leafs ship.

 

[Redleaf]

Right. There were many many voices on radio shows I listen to that work in the game that said Babcock would have the Leafs team playing better than people expected and that it could hurt their rebuilding plans.

Well, I certainly can't discredit people on the radio.

Maybe the tons of speculation was from callers calling in to these radio shows.

No , Otherwise I would have said many callers were saying Babcock would have the team playing too well.

 

[herman]

So, I've been doing some number crunching, and, based on what I've come up with, I'm really not sure the whole "Stamkos doesn't mess with the Leafs' cap" argument holds water.

With Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Soshnikov, Zaitsev and Hyman on the opening day roster, $750K 1 year contracts for the 3 RFA defencemen, $1M, 1 year for a backup goalie, the Cowen buyout credit, no performance bonuses included, and a rough estimate of a $73.2M cap (current cap with 2.5% growth - which was the last estimate I saw of what it might be after the PA uses the escalator) I put the Leafs at ~$7.8M in cap before they get into LTIR space.

Now, why is the pre-LTIR number important? Because it can't be used to cover performance bonuses. Unused LTIR space disappears at the end of the season - and, if you use any of it, you're considered to have hit the cap ceiling - and performance bonuses are awarded after. Depending on what Schedule B bonuses are in Matthews' contract, the Leafs will have somewhere between $3.6M and $5.6M in available bonuses on the roster next season  - and, if they go into LTIR space, every penny of those bonuses will be carried over into the 17/18. Now, obviously, it's unlikely every one of those bonuses are reached, but, I'd say it's not unreasonable to estimate that ~$2M of them will be.

So, with that, in 17/18, the Leafs would be looking at a total of roughly $4.5M in dead space, while still having a number of contracts that will require space for bonuses. That puts them at ~$46.75M committed (or ~$26.5M in space) to 9 forwards, 2 defenceman, and no goalies - still with $2.75M+ in potential bonuses (depending on whether or not other prospects make the roster), Zaitsev and Hyman needing new contracts (as well as the 3 RFA defencemen), and uncertain growth in the cap. That's a pretty tight squeeze, as far as I'm concerned.

And this is all without signing Stamkos?

Looks like room for only 1 premiere UFA signing, and as Nik pointed out when I asked last night, UFA D-men and UFA goalies are going to be in that 7-9M range too.

 

[Bill_Berg]

So, I've been doing some number crunching, and, based on what I've come up with, I'm really not sure the whole "Stamkos doesn't mess with the Leafs' cap" argument holds water.

With Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Soshnikov, Zaitsev and Hyman on the opening day roster, $750K 1 year contracts for the 3 RFA defencemen, $1M, 1 year for a backup goalie, the Cowen buyout credit, no performance bonuses included, and a rough estimate of a $73.2M cap (current cap with 2.5% growth - which was the last estimate I saw of what it might be after the PA uses the escalator) I put the Leafs at ~$7.8M in cap before they get into LTIR space.

Now, why is the pre-LTIR number important? Because it can't be used to cover performance bonuses. Unused LTIR space disappears at the end of the season - and, if you use any of it, you're considered to have hit the cap ceiling - and performance bonuses are awarded after. Depending on what Schedule B bonuses are in Matthews' contract, the Leafs will have somewhere between $3.6M and $5.6M in available bonuses on the roster next season  - and, if they go into LTIR space, every penny of those bonuses will be carried over into the 17/18. Now, obviously, it's unlikely every one of those bonuses are reached, but, I'd say it's not unreasonable to estimate that ~$2M of them will be.

So, with that, in 17/18, the Leafs would be looking at a total of roughly $4.5M in dead space, while still having a number of contracts that will require space for bonuses. That puts them at ~$46.75M committed (or ~$26.5M in space) to 9 forwards, 2 defenceman, and no goalies - still with $2.75M+ in potential bonuses (depending on whether or not other prospects make the roster), Zaitsev and Hyman needing new contracts (as well as the 3 RFA defencemen), and uncertain growth in the cap. That's a pretty tight squeeze, as far as I'm concerned.

And this is all without signing Stamkos?

Looks like room for only 1 premiere UFA signing, and as Nik pointed out when I asked last night, UFA D-men and UFA goalies are going to be in that 7-9M range too.

Or none for the next 2 seasons.

 

[Nik]

In terms of TOI our top-5 most used forwards were Kadri, PAP, Komarov, Grabner, and Bozak. For Carolina it was Staal, Lindholm, Rask, Skinner, Staal. That's a big edge to them I think when it comes to talent.

That's more of a total thing though. Realistically you can bump Grabner there for JVR/Nylander in terms of who was actually getting minutes. And while we can agree that Eric Staal has been a great player, he sure wasn't last year. I don't know if I'd comfortably put him above Bozak or Kadri.

And then, whatever gap there was there, I'd argue the Leafs defense was comparably better than the Carolina D. The Leafs got better goaltending too.

 

[herman]

So, I've been doing some number crunching, and, based on what I've come up with, I'm really not sure the whole "Stamkos doesn't mess with the Leafs' cap" argument holds water.

With Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Soshnikov, Zaitsev and Hyman on the opening day roster, $750K 1 year contracts for the 3 RFA defencemen, $1M, 1 year for a backup goalie, the Cowen buyout credit, no performance bonuses included, and a rough estimate of a $73.2M cap (current cap with 2.5% growth - which was the last estimate I saw of what it might be after the PA uses the escalator) I put the Leafs at ~$7.8M in cap before they get into LTIR space.

Now, why is the pre-LTIR number important? Because it can't be used to cover performance bonuses. Unused LTIR space disappears at the end of the season - and, if you use any of it, you're considered to have hit the cap ceiling - and performance bonuses are awarded after. Depending on what Schedule B bonuses are in Matthews' contract, the Leafs will have somewhere between $3.6M and $5.6M in available bonuses on the roster next season  - and, if they go into LTIR space, every penny of those bonuses will be carried over into the 17/18. Now, obviously, it's unlikely every one of those bonuses are reached, but, I'd say it's not unreasonable to estimate that ~$2M of them will be.

So, with that, in 17/18, the Leafs would be looking at a total of roughly $4.5M in dead space, while still having a number of contracts that will require space for bonuses. That puts them at ~$46.75M committed (or ~$26.5M in space) to 9 forwards, 2 defenceman, and no goalies - still with $2.75M+ in potential bonuses (depending on whether or not other prospects make the roster), Zaitsev and Hyman needing new contracts (as well as the 3 RFA defencemen), and uncertain growth in the cap. That's a pretty tight squeeze, as far as I'm concerned.

And this is all without signing Stamkos?

Looks like room for only 1 premiere UFA signing, and as Nik pointed out when I asked last night, UFA D-men and UFA goalies are going to be in that 7-9M range too.

Or none for the next 2 seasons.

And I'm okay with that.

 

[Nik]

Here's an article that insinuates what RedLeaf claimed earlier, but doesn't really cite where those voices came from.

Right so it's another article with "other people are saying this, let me explain why they're wrong."                                                 

 

[Redleaf]

Here's one. Discredit away...

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/09/15/ken-hitchcock-on-mike-babcock-his-team-is-going-to-do-a-lot-better-than-people-think/

That's emphatically not what you claimed. You said there were people saying hiring Babcock was putting the cart before the horse. That's Hitchcock saying Babcock is going to build a really good team and fast. Hitchcock sounds pretty pro-hiring Babcock there. You said there were people arguing the opposite.

Please explain how this matters so much to you in this argument. I want to know where your coming from on this Nik. Otherwise you're just discrediting for the sake of discrediting.