HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

"Not enough depth yet"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-24-2012, 08:49 AM
  #26
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,986
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busher Jackson View Post
Not a massacre at all, Sutter hasn't shown the same offensive ability . But Rielly over Pouliot is a big difference and Blacker vs Dumoulin, same draft round (2) 2009, probably a sawoff.
Considering Sutter is a centre, has shown much more consistancy and is three years younger than Kulemin, I think the difference between Rielly and Pouliot (two 17-18 year old prospects who're pretty much crapshoots at this point, at least comparatively) is nowhere near enough to make up for it.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 09:32 AM
  #27
Phatic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITM View Post
The depth we lacked was not having Eric Stall.
^

you can talk about lack of depth until youre blue in the face, but in this case i would wager that had nothing to do with it.
you dont pay that kind of price to get J stall for a year.

Phatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 09:48 AM
  #28
Dark Knight
#WeTheNorth
 
Dark Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,560
vCash: 500
I think Staal wanted to go to Carolina all along. I'm such a huge fan of his game and look forward to seeing him in Carolina.

Carolina is one team I cheer for silently other than the Leafs.

Dark Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 10:03 AM
  #29
Busher Jackson
4x 1st Team Allstar
 
Busher Jackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Considering Sutter is a centre, has shown much more consistancy and is three years younger than Kulemin, I think the difference between Rielly and Pouliot (two 17-18 year old prospects who're pretty much crapshoots at this point, at least comparatively) is nowhere near enough to make up for it.
The youth is a plus, but if your claim is Sutter is consistent at 15-20 goals 30 point player I agree. Kulemin upside is of course 29 goal 57 point player. Will he reach it again, hopefully. I f Reilly isn't hurt he goes first overall. Pouliot was a reach at 8.

Busher Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 11:10 AM
  #30
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busher Jackson View Post
The youth is a plus, but if your claim is Sutter is consistent at 15-20 goals 30 point player I agree. Kulemin upside is of course 29 goal 57 point player. Will he reach it again, hopefully. I f Reilly isn't hurt he goes first overall. Pouliot was a reach at 8.
Ignore who was picked, since it was the pick that was traded instead of the player. It was the #5 vs. the #8. Just becuse Pittsburgh made a bad pick doesn't change the value.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:06 PM
  #31
Kessely Snipes
Great White North
 
Kessely Snipes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
Jordan Staal would have been such a risky trade, chances are if his heart was set on Carolina he would bolt next years July 1 anyway.

Kessely Snipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:09 PM
  #32
Blaylock38
Bleeds Blue & White
 
Blaylock38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
We have the depth to get whoever is available, for some reason Leaf players, prospects always seem to get the short end of the stick when being evaluated. I am sure Staal is happy to be with his brother.

Blaylock38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:25 PM
  #33
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Ignore who was picked, since it was the pick that was traded instead of the player. It was the #5 vs. the #8. Just becuse Pittsburgh made a bad pick doesn't change the value.
What's the historic value of # 8? Not usually that great, so I wouldn't suggest that WHAT they picked is outside the norm.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:29 PM
  #34
jughead42
Registered User
 
jughead42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
We had the depth to acquire Mike Richards last year as well. Cox knows nothing.
I don't get this. If we had the depth to get Richards and Staal if we wanted them but chose not to, why the heck not? Number one center is our biggest hole in the lineup and the most difficult hole to fill properly, so why do we pass on two opportunities to fill it if we could have? This is just dumb. We don't have the depth to do it or we would have. Staal and Richards are better than anybody on our team right now, it would have been almost impossible to overpay for either of them if we had enough pieces to make a deal. I'm thinking we must not have had the pieces those teams wanted.

jughead42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:32 PM
  #35
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jughead42 View Post
I don't get this. If we had the depth to get Richards and Staal if we wanted them but chose not to, why the heck not? Number one center is our biggest hole in the lineup and the most difficult hole to fill properly, so why do we pass on two opportunities to fill it if we could have? This is just dumb. We don't have the depth to do it or we would have. Staal and Richards are better than anybody on our team right now, it would have been almost impossible to overpay for either of them if we had enough pieces to make a deal. I'm thinking we must not have had the pieces those teams wanted.
Staal wanted to go to Carolina all along and Holmgren wanted Richards as far away as possible. That wasn't our choice but we had the pieces to get it done.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:33 PM
  #36
Busher Jackson
4x 1st Team Allstar
 
Busher Jackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Ignore who was picked, since it was the pick that was traded instead of the player. It was the #5 vs. the #8. Just becuse Pittsburgh made a bad pick doesn't change the value.
Agree. To go from 8 to 5 costs two second rounders. Leafs gave up a high 2nd and high 3rd to go from 7 to 5 in 2008 to select Schenn. Of course ignore the bad pick just recognize the value of the 5th over 8th.

Busher Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:35 PM
  #37
Funk Volume
Independent Living
 
Funk Volume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Welland, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,398
vCash: 500
I personally think we have the depth to do it, but doing it would result in us having a very depleted system.

Imagine us giving up Kulemin, Blacker/Percy + 5th ovr for J Staal. We have no one to replace Kulemin, and we lose two potential top 4 D's (Blacker/Percy + Rielly). By filling one hole, we'd be creating two more.

Funk Volume is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:37 PM
  #38
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jughead42 View Post
I don't get this. If we had the depth to get Richards and Staal if we wanted them but chose not to, why the heck not? Number one center is our biggest hole in the lineup and the most difficult hole to fill properly, so why do we pass on two opportunities to fill it if we could have? This is just dumb. We don't have the depth to do it or we would have. Staal and Richards are better than anybody on our team right now, it would have been almost impossible to overpay for either of them if we had enough pieces to make a deal. I'm thinking we must not have had the pieces those teams wanted.
Just because we could blow the bank and empty out any to all promising prospects on immediate help doesn't mean we should (the point Cox is making, and he's spot on). Did that for decades, it's what Burke is fixing.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:40 PM
  #39
KesselLooksLikeRadar*
The People's Champ
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackJ View Post
Agreed. Wonder if the Blue Jackets would take Kessel straight up. Nash is the better player but his contract reduces his overall value. Even trade IMO.

Nash fits the Carlye/Burke vision, Kessel doesn't.
No, he isn't.

KesselLooksLikeRadar* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:46 PM
  #40
Mowerman
Registered User
 
Mowerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KesselLooksLikeRadar View Post
No, he isn't.
This guy gets it.

Mowerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:00 PM
  #41
jughead42
Registered User
 
jughead42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Staal wanted to go to Carolina all along and Holmgren wanted Richards as far away as possible. That wasn't our choice but we had the pieces to get it done.
I disagree. Staal doesn't have a no trade clause, so he had no say in the matter. If Burke had the pieces to trade for him he would have. It gives us a number one center for next year, and the possibility to trade his UFA rights to Carolina if we can't weasel him into an extension. We didn't have the pieces.

As far as Holmgren wanting Richards far away, that really is irrelevant. He had no problem trading JVR our way. If we had Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, and the rest of that package Richards would have been a Leaf. LA had a better package, Burke couldn't top it.

jughead42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:03 PM
  #42
showtime8
Registered User
 
showtime8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 500
If the price tag for Nash wasn't so high, I would say bar-none he would be the guy to go after. But after picking up JVR yesterday, its clear that Burke can go into the next season with Lupul and JVR as his top 2 left wingers.

Of course the focus is going to be on getting that #1 centreman, but if you could manage to get 3/4 of the production that Kessel and Lupul had last season, as well as a healthy JVR, consistent Grabovski and even 20 goals combined from both Frattin and Kulemin... then I'd say that the only focus he has is the back end. (goalie and d)

To me, Burke has something else up his sleeve. I think he prys one of the goalies out of St. Louis.

showtime8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:04 PM
  #43
angry pirate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
There is a difference between having depth to make a deal and having quality prospects in your system. The leafs have some quality players in their system, easily to rival what Carolina gave up for Staal. That doesn't mean you have the depth for the move to make sense.

angry pirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:12 PM
  #44
jughead42
Registered User
 
jughead42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry pirate View Post
There is a difference between having depth to make a deal and having quality prospects in your system. The leafs have some quality players in their system, easily to rival what Carolina gave up for Staal. That doesn't mean you have the depth for the move to make sense.
We've been looking for a number one center ever since Sundin left town, and our lack of success in finding one has to be a huge contributing factor in our struggles. If we can finally plug that hole, it makes sense regardless of how much you gut your system. Burke has been able to build prospect depth, that's something he can do so if we trade it away we can replace it. He hasn't been able to land a number one center, so I'd rather have that taken care of and worry about our depth afterwards.

jughead42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:41 PM
  #45
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Isn't Cox saying the exact same thing that Pierre McGuire did how the Leafs don't have enough assests to aquire a major player via trade?

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 05:53 PM
  #46
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jughead42 View Post
I disagree. Staal doesn't have a no trade clause, so he had no say in the matter. If Burke had the pieces to trade for him he would have. It gives us a number one center for next year, and the possibility to trade his UFA rights to Carolina if we can't weasel him into an extension. We didn't have the pieces.

As far as Holmgren wanting Richards far away, that really is irrelevant. He had no problem trading JVR our way. If we had Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, and the rest of that package Richards would have been a Leaf. LA had a better package, Burke couldn't top it.
Staal made it abundantly clear he would extend in Carolina because his brother is there. We have the pieces but the question really is why waste our assets knowing he would bolt in one year?

Secondly Holmgren got a good package for Richards but his preference was to move him as far away as possible and that's exactly what he did. It's completely relevant.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.