How do you win the cup without making the playoffs first?
When he came here he said he wanted to build a team that would compete with other top teams and be a cup contender. Let's not loose sight of that. Even some franchises can back into a playoff spot. Apparently in Toronto we needed Burke because this is a tough market. Tired of all his BS and what guys spew on here. We need to build a solid franchise not just make the playoffs.
I would have rather drafted Crosby and Malkin if we're having this fantasy.
One has significant head issues and is a soft player, and the other is a headcase who is easily tricked into hurting the team. And both can't even win in the first round.
I am not exactly sure how Burke screwed this one up;
Burke and Holmgren each found a package they both felt was appropriate, and Holmgren then suggested to Burke that he would call him back as there was other teams in on Richards.
When a GM suggests that they're going to proceed to call you back, you generally believe they will, even if it means that they're not going to accept your offer and to see if you'd be willing to bolster your offer.
In this case, that call back was never made, from what I understand. Thus, Burke was never given an oppertunity to further "woo" Holmgren for Richards services.
Not sure how someone can "screw up" when you virtually had no chance in the first place.
The effort was there, the package and willingness was there on Burkes part, but where this was lacking is the fact that Holmgren wanted both of these young pieces gone to the West.
When he came here he said he wanted to build a team that would compete with other top teams and be a cup contender. Let's not loose sight of that. Even some franchises can back into a playoff spot. Apparently in Toronto we needed Burke because this is a tough market. Tired of all his BS and what guys spew on here. We need to build a solid franchise not just make the playoffs.
That didn't answer the question. How do you become a legitimate cup contender without making the playoffs first? Don't you have to build this solid franchise you're talking about before anything else?
I'm not sure how anyone expects to go from zero straight to a cup winner this quickly as this team is being rebuilt. Unfortunately it might take a while but that's how it goes if you want to be set up for the future and not just some one hit wonder.
That didn't answer the question. How do you become a legitimate cup contender without making the playoffs first? Don't you have to build this solid franchise you're talking about before anything else?
I'm not sure how anyone expects to go from zero straight to a cup winner this quickly as this team is being rebuilt. Unfortunately it might take a while but that's how it goes if you want to be set up for the future and not just some one hit wonder.
I'm not going to argue with you over Burke. He said he wasn't interested in a five year rebuild because he knew better. Well, we are year four and not any closer. I will give him this year to claw his way out of this mess but after that it won't just be me calling for the axe to fall.
I'm not one for trading away assets until one is close to competing for a cup. Sending two and three people out for one is not my idea of building a franchise. I am tired of quick fixes, I would rather we keep the 5th and build and make room permanently for Frattin, Kadri, Holzher and others. If that means trading MacA, burying Komo and Armstrong then I'm all for it but Armstrong would be of interest to some teams.
Is making the plpayoffs getting us closer to being a cup contender? Sure, we can twist it that way. Show me a team that has six or seven young players that we can watch in a Leaf uniform for the next decade and compete is more like it. Listening to the Nash trade rumors puts us right back to square one. Have to admit watching Phy emerge is pretty fun isn't it? They made trades but they made them once they assembled a lot of young pieces and are now fine tuning. Watching a young Giroux, Couturier, Schenn, Van R if he comes back and a bunch of other guys that is fun. That is the hockey I want to see here again.
At the end the trade was meaningless. Busts. Garbage in garbage out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade
Four first round picks. End of convo.
Oh man, the hypocrisy is hilarious. Trades aging, pending UFA for 2 firsts and a second round pick. Garbage return. Doesn't trade pieces of young core with potential for single first round pick. Worst move ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendelstache
thats not realistic, seguin and couturier was very very much a reality ... IF IF IF...
Getting couturier and seguin is very much more realistic than crosby and malkin. It would have been reality if we still had the 2nd overall pick back then.
Getting couturier and seguin is very much more realistic than crosby and malkin. It would have been reality if we still had the 2nd overall pick back then.
Not at all.
The ownership group failed by not having a mandate to tank and tank hard leading up to CBA renegotiations so that we could come out of the lockout with a young roster with an abundance of ELCs and then cherry-picked UFAs with our tons of salary cap space after they'd developed for a couple of years.
Because of ownership's total unwillingness to tank eight to ten years ago, we're stuck in the current quagmire.
Edit: Potentially, we could have then traded one of our established talents to a team projected to finish outside the bubble in exchange for two first round picks and a second round pick, using our prescient knowledge that they would finish 29th or worse, and we could have added additional elite talent to our roster.
When he came here he said he wanted to build a team that would compete with other top teams and be a cup contender. Let's not loose sight of that. Even some franchises can back into a playoff spot. Apparently in Toronto we needed Burke because this is a tough market. Tired of all his BS and what guys spew on here. We need to build a solid franchise not just make the playoffs.
I think this post right here is basically what the problem is in Toronto. It seems like the management team is really aiming to get back to respectability rather than contention and it's almost like an echo of what a lot of the fans want which to me is impatience.
For the topic of the thread, I think Mike Richards would have been a great addition but it's tough because at the time Nik Kulemin was looking really good. It's hindsight that says it was a mistake.
The ownership group failed by not having a mandate to tank and tank hard leading up to CBA renegotiations so that we could come out of the lockout with a young roster with an abundance of ELCs and then cherry-picked UFAs with our tons of salary cap space after they'd developed for a couple of years.
Because of ownership's total unwillingness to tank eight to ten years ago, we're stuck in the current quagmire.
Edit: Potentially, we could have then traded one of our established talents to a team projected to finish outside the bubble in exchange for two first round picks and a second round pick, using our prescient knowledge that they would finish 29th or worse, and we could have added additional elite talent to our roster.
Eight to ten years ago? I don't think that's really the case. I suppose they could have and had it worked then it wouldn't have made any sense because we would have those really good players like Ovechkin and Crosby right? But because they didn't then, they were like procrastinating the need to draft those kinds of players. That make sense? I talked about this with my friend and he agreed that the Leafs should have drafted really high at least a couple of times since there hasn't been any playoffs since before the lockout.
Eight to ten years ago? I don't think that's really the case. I suppose they could have and had it worked then it wouldn't have made any sense because we would have those really good players like Ovechkin and Crosby right? But because they didn't then, they were like procrastinating the need to draft those kinds of players. That make sense? I talked about this with my friend and he agreed that the Leafs should have drafted really high at least a couple of times since there hasn't been any playoffs since before the lockout.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but yes, they should have tanked back then, and that failure is the reason our team is hamstrung now. Ownership should have relinquished control of the team due to their failure to operate it correctly when they had their hands directly in the cookie jar. You can extend my disdain through the JFJ period for similar reasons, too.
But yes, having Crosby and Malkin is just as plausible a scenario as having Seguin and Couturier, and there's no reason to say it isn't.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but yes, they should have tanked back then, and that failure is the reason our team is hamstrung now. Ownership should have relinquished control of the team due to their failure to operate it correctly when they had their hands directly in the cookie jar. You can extend my disdain through the JFJ period for similar reasons, too.
But yes, having Crosby and Malkin is just as plausible a scenario as having Seguin and Couturier, and there's no reason to say it isn't.
Ha. A few too many suds tonight I think. What I'm saying is that I agree the Leafs should have tried harder to draft franchise players just after the lockout but that also includes up until right now because we haven't made the playoffs in any of those seasons including this one. The 5th overall pick is still a nice pick so no complaints really because I think Galchenyuk could be as good as Nail. I don't think Nail is a cut above some of the others. We really need this player to turn out. Call it a MULLIGAN for the Schenn pick.
Carlyle is a good coach too. I'm watching Coach Carter right now on CBC. I hope Randy is too.
Getting couturier and seguin is very much more realistic than crosby and malkin. It would have been reality if we still had the 2nd overall pick back then.
Except we didn't have the 2nd overall pick, and there is no reason to think we ever would have. Therefore, it is no more realistic of a scenario as winning the Crosby lottery.
Except we didn't have the 2nd overall pick, and there is no reason to think we ever would have. Therefore, it is no more realistic of a scenario as winning the Crosby lottery.
I don't understand this. Are you suggesting the Leafs would have been a better team had they not purchased Phil Kessel from the Boston Bruins, because that is what you are implying?
I don't understand this. Are you suggesting the Leafs would have been a better team had they not purchased Phil Kessel from the Boston Bruins, because that is what you are implying?
No, I am not implying that we would have been a better team that year without Phil Kessel. I am saying that it is fully possible that we would have had a better outcome that year without the trade.
You change that one thing, you change everything else. Countless other factors that not only change things for your team, but for every team that you face.
If hockey was just who had the best players, there wouldn't be sports betting, and none of us would watch. You can't just make a change like that and assume that everything else remains constant. That timing, combinations, strategies, motivations, streaks of all other players would be exactly the same.
There was a full 82 games that were affected by that trade. It is more ridiculous to suggest that the result would have been the same, than to suggest that it wouldn't.
No, I am not implying that we would have been a better team that year without Phil Kessel. I am saying that it is fully possible that we would have had a better outcome that year without the trade.
Again, I don't understand you. In two sentences you contradict yourself. It's puzzling.
The first sentence you typed says that we are not a better team without Phil Kessel, and the second one says that you think we are a better team without him.
Again, I don't understand you. In two sentences you contradict yourself. It's puzzling.
The first sentence you typed says that we are not a better team without Phil Kessel, and the second one says that you think we are a better team without him.
Which is it? haha
I didn't contradict myself at all. There is a difference between a better team and a better outcome in any given year.
We also could have had the same number of points and wins, and still had a different finish than 2nd.
Injury prone and would waste salary. Plus he was a Habs fan growing up...
