22 jan 2020
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>chloewoj</b></div><div>i don’t know why the leafs wouldn’t jump on this. you guys have the offensive power already (marner, matthews, nylander, tavares). yes kappy is a great assets to have but you don’t NEED him. you NEED defenseman. the sabres are giving you a very solid defenseman (solid enough to be dahlin’s d partner) at a reduced cap hit and a high second that you can use to draft a solid defensive prospect.</div></div>
I've stated that I don't dismiss it as an option. The inclusion of the 2nd and the retention on Miller certainly make it interesting, but there are still concerns.
Miller has not shown to be what a lot of Leaf fans seem to think they need on D right now. He's incredibly sheltered; starts a ton in the offensive zone and doesn't play tough competition. Doesn't PK. Is fairly reliant on PP time to produce (40% of his points over the last 3 years have come on the man-advantage) and given that the Leafs have PP options already... He just doesn't <em>seem</em> to be a great fit.
Considering that the Leafs will be going the 7-3-1 route in the expansion draft, a forward for D swap puts them in a tough spot. They'd basically have to protect Miller otherwise they traded assets for him just to lose him for nothing after a year, which means they leave both of Holl and Dermott exposed and lose one of them or have to trade other assets to Seattle to get them to take someone else. Sort of putting themselves in a corner with that trade. If they are going to make that type of swap, the Dman they get will have to be worthy of that protection slot.
Even with the retention on Miller, the Leafs would still need to make another move elsewhere to get under the cap. Let's say it's Johnsson or Kerfoot because they just seem most likely. You're probably either going to be downgrading in that deal for someone with a smaller cap hit or simply taking back picks. Now you've lost Kapanen up front and either lost or downgraded Johnsson or Kerfoot. All of a sudden that offence isn't so deep anymore.
As I said, it's an option that I don't scoff at, but it's not an easy yes by any means, imo.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CD282</b></div><div>You must be smarter than 3 veteran NHL coaches.
Over the past 3 years Nurse has played more minutes at 5v5 than any NHL player not named Drew Doughty. Meanwhile McDavid and Draisaitl are #2 and 3 among forwards respectively.
Clearly McLellan, Hitchcock and Tippett don't know as much as you.</div></div>
How does this really relate, though? I have no comment right now on the defensive capabilities of those players, but the time on ice doesn't say much about their defensive play (specifically regarding McDavid and Drai). Their impact on the offensive side of the game coupled with the teams lack of depth up front over the last 3 years would cause me to question the intelligence and sanity of any coach who didn't play them a ton, regardless of any potential defensive deficiencies.
And, don't get me wrong, I get that player usage (whether it be toi, zone starts, qoc, etc.) is often an indicator of the skills/effectiveness of players in certain situations, whether that's only in the coaches eyes or reflected in the stats as well. But it just doesn't take a genius to play McDavid and Draisaitl a ****load and it doesn't require that they are strong defensive players to justify it.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mhockey91</b></div><div>One of the worst comments ive read on here. Wow. Dumo by then was a top pairing LHD, He literally inked a 6 year $24,600,000 contract after that playoff series. Hainsey was extremely solid night in through night out. He was miles better on Pittsburgh than Toronto. He was logging over 22 mins a night on that cap run. Schultz was top 10 in Norris votes that season. Cole in the 2016/17 had the best year of his career. He had a career high in Points, Plus/Minus, Blocks, and Hits. Daley/Maatta was extremely solid on the 3rd pairing as well. You are severly underestimating this d-core. If it was as bad as you say it was, we would have lost in the first round like what the leafs do every season. How can you seriously sit here and tell me that a Stanley Cup D-core that also led us to 111 points in the regular season was "atrocious" Maybe you should stick to your own team as you clearly know nothing about the Penguins.</div></div>
I was looking forward to having an interesting, civil discussion/debate about this... Guess you can't always get what you want.
I was wondering myself if maybe I was being a bit too quick to jump to conclusions here. Upon further 'investigation', I think I was a <em>little</em> bit harsh with my evaluation. But really not much. And just to be clear - I'm talking purely about their playoff performances. (I made a mistake in my last comment that was misleading.)
Dumoulin and Hainsey, though they got out shot/attempted to holy hell, did quite a good job of limiting high danger shots against.
After that, though, it's a steep drop-off.
Schultz still put up the points - credit to him; you need Dmen that can do that. But (points aside) he, along with the rest of the D-core, put up very poor results across the board. Shots, attempts, expected goals, scoring chance%, high danger chance% (not as bad as the others but still below average), etc. They simply did not perform well in the playoffs - there's nothing wrong with that - they still won the f***ing Cup.
As for your 'If it was as bad as you say it was, we would have lost in the first round'... The Penguins had a .929 Sv% throughout the playoffs; that can carry you far. And it's obvious that the D-core was the beneficiary of that and not the other way around (except perhaps Hainsey and Dumoulin) - the Dmen were riding PDO <em>benders.</em> The whole point of my original comment was that a team does not have to be perfect to have success, <em>especially</em> in the playoffs, which this team/D-core made abundantly clear.