A defenceman on one of the worst teams in the game is worse than Holl

chychurn is worse than holl? dougie hamilton was worse than holl last year? chabot has been worse than holl for a while too eh... crazy :/

Rielly isn't a winger. The thing you need to do to play top 6 minutes on the wing is shoot the puck. We criticize some top 6 wingers for not being able to do so but really thats in comparison to other top 6ers. A shot is what really seperates a bottom 6 winger from a top 6. With Rielly's shot, he's much closer to a Kerfoot (who also shouldn't be top 6 here) than he is a Nylander, Marner or Bunting.

Hawks wouldn't retain half on mccabe especially if the first rounder is 2 years away.

Trading Holl is a terrible idea. Giving up all that for McCabe is crazy. Leafs are fine at LHD

you're right about the shot but i also think that there are other factors that can tip the scale as well in regards to the difference between top and bottom six usage. rielly is a top six level playmaker in the NHL, thats what gets him up on the second line. certainly not the defense or shot. also important to remember guys like Nic Dowd, Phil Danault, Mikael Backlund & even Hyman who are all top six mainstays and have been for a while but absolutely cannot sling it.

I feel like that's a 'who are we comparing their shots to' example. Hyman is the one I'm most familiar with since he's a former Leafs so I'll use him. He may not have the shot of a Nylander or Matthews but he's still leagues ahead of the Kerfoots, Kampfs and Engvalls of the world.

hyman definitely has the best shot of the group, danault by far the worst IMO but all the players have in common the fact that they each have a specialty be it playmaking, great mobility, strong hand-eye & high motor, or defensive prowess. i think rielly is no different in this regard, his specialty is his passing and skating which make him a threat on the rush and on the cycle. thats what puts him above kerfoot for me who IMO doesnt do anything at a top six level and is more of the ideal third liner, i probably shouldve actually changed the lines i suppose.

I don't think people (outside of Chicago) realize how good McCabe's been this year. The team is obviously terrible being in last place, but McCabe's still managed to be a PLUS 6 on the season. I fully understand +/- isn't the best indicator, but it's a signal that people so take a closer look. He's been outstanding.

1- playing the wing and defence are so incredibly different that simply being an "offensive defenceman" is not enough for the transition to ever work. There is a reason that it has literally only worked twice in living memory with top end guys (Burns and Buff) and one of those guys played wing growing up. You might as well try RIelly in goal for how well it would work
2-if a player is having a career year, it literally means they will probaby get worse, and if that's a career year from McCabe, then yikes, you're giving up way way way too much for him. The Hawks are historically bad and he's a big part of it.

1) Hawks aren't retaining $2M on McCabe for another 3 years
2) McCabe is not worth that, a late 1st maybe, a 2nd rounder more likely

McCabe is not any of those guys. He's not a top end player like the other listed. Comparing him to those guys makes this such a silly argument.b

how i wish i could send this to everybody that's told me how awful he is. if he came to toronto and played like this they'd scream and cry until he won the norris