Now we are somewhat on the same page. Plenty of blame to go around. The MAIN reason is a little off the mark IMO.
I'm trying to be realistic concerning the blame game.
Our goalie situation was a result of Gionta, but Gus still pulled through prior to the collapse. Yes our goaltending numbers aren't the best, but when you have three goalies, two rated by HF as potential 1G, perform badly on the same team, you start to wonder about whether the goaltending problem is indicative of a larger problem.
Schenn and Kuli regressed, but that wasn't enough for us to fall to 5th last
Our PK was bad, but we fixed it during January, PK wasn't the reason for the collapse.
When all of LACK came back, we started to see the collapse. They weren't there to stop it, and you could tell the leafs were already beaten before the end of the first period. Teams fall into slumps, Vets are the ones who slap the team to get them into a winning mood. Instead i saw losers playing after getting blown out by montreal.
I will post again because it was conveniently ignored..
I'd like to see anybody who thinks "tanking" (that is, finishing lower in the standings and making the team worse on purpose) is done intentionally by any part of an organization, be it players or management, prove it.
This notion is brought up way too often, and it's complete crap. Used as fact, based on zero facts.
I will post again because it was conveniently ignored..
I'd like to see anybody who thinks "tanking" (that is, finishing lower in the standings and making the team worse on purpose) is done intentionally by any part of an organization, be it players or management, prove it.
This notion is brought up way too often, and it's complete crap. Used as fact, based on zero facts.
Don't even bother. These people won't even acknowledge your post if you sound the slightest bit competent. They'll lurk and prowl and find the people that will get into petty little flamewars over inane posts and hijack every thread. At best you can make an inane post, hope they take the bait, and then try to argue your point until they decide it's time to dodge again.
I will post again because it was conveniently ignored..
I'd like to see anybody who thinks "tanking" (that is, finishing lower in the standings and making the team worse on purpose) is done intentionally by any part of an organization, be it players or management, prove it.
This notion is brought up way too often, and it's complete crap. Used as fact, based on zero facts.
i pretty much agree with this. of course, people will point to examples where a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs has traded a current nhler for a draft pick and say that proves "tanking", but that's simply realizing where your team is and what's best for the immediate and/or long term future.
"tanking" is just something fans have created. it doesn't really exist.
The Leafs have not in any way, shape, or form "tanked".
They have sucked.
this is absolutely true.
thebluemachine is simply trolling and doesn't actually believe a word he's saying.
burke has failed and the team he has assembled has been brutally awful. to suggest this is part of any sort of master "rebuild" or "tank" plan is obviously absurd.
thebluemachine is simply trolling and doesn't actually believe a word he's saying.
burke has failed and the team he has assembled has been brutally awful. to suggest this is part of any sort of master "rebuild" or "tank" plan is obviously absurd.
What about the rest of my sentence after "they sucked"? My post was not a condemnation of the state of the team but rather correcting the bad perception that they have somehow TRIED to be in the bottom of the league.
Their performance is in direct relation to the experience and skill levels of the players that are on the team. Those who have high levels of skill on the Leafs aren't the most experienced, and those who have lots of experience haven't performed very well this year.
If the Leafs made the playoffs this year you'd all be jumping around saying how awesome the team is and what a great job Brian Burke has done. Instead it's all about what a colossal failure things are.
Things are getting better. They have to get worse before they get better as parts are changed around.
Don't even bother. These people won't even acknowledge your post if you sound the slightest bit competent. They'll lurk and prowl and find the people that will get into petty little flamewars over inane posts and hijack every thread. At best you can make an inane post, hope they take the bait, and then try to argue your point until they decide it's time to dodge again.
No kidding. Much more fun to sound superior and bag on the team while making up "facts" than have a reasonable discourse.
i'm trying to be realistic concerning the blame game.
Our goalie situation was a result of gionta, but gus still pulled through prior to the collapse. Yes our goaltending numbers aren't the best, but when you have three goalies, two rated by hf as potential 1g, perform badly on the same team, you start to wonder about whether the goaltending problem is indicative of a larger problem.
Schenn and kuli regressed, but that wasn't enough for us to fall to 5th last
our pk was bad, but we fixed it during january, pk wasn't the reason for the collapse.
When all of lack came back, we started to see the collapse. They weren't there to stop it, and you could tell the leafs were already beaten before the end of the first period. Teams fall into slumps, vets are the ones who slap the team to get them into a winning mood. Instead i saw losers playing after getting blown out by montreal.
What about the rest of my sentence after "they sucked"? My post was not a condemnation of the state of the team but rather correcting the bad perception that they have somehow TRIED to be in the bottom of the league.
i stopped reading after you said "they sucked". i figured that said it all. you're absolutely right when you say they have not tried to be this bad.
Quote:
If the Leafs made the playoffs this year you'd all be jumping around saying how awesome the team is and what a great job Brian Burke has done. Instead it's all about what a colossal failure things are.
that's very true. if they had made the playoffs, things would be a whole lot better. they didn't make the playoffs, thus its a colossal failure. that goes without saying. its all about results.
Quote:
Things are getting better. They have to get worse before they get better as parts are changed around.
not sure i agree with this, but if this is true, i wonder if we have bottomed out yet? or will it continue to get worse before it gets any better?
i don't see our future being any brighter than most other teams in the east. not nearly as bright as many.
thebluemachine is simply trolling and doesn't actually believe a word he's saying.
burke has failed and the team he has assembled has been brutally awful. to suggest this is part of any sort of master "rebuild" or "tank" plan is obviously absurd.
Nope, I backed up my posts as to why certain things were done (or not done to be more specific) to help this team tank and you never responded. Just because you still don't understand or agree with me doesn't mean I'm trolling Frankie.
The Leafs have not in any way, shape, or form "tanked".
They have sucked. They have been a team in flux, and have been getting rebuilt in an accelerated fashion. This process is not complete.
Tanking means deliberately losing or positioning your team to have the least chance of winning in order to get a high draft selection. That's it.
You can lose without tanking but can't tank without losing.
-------
For those complaining about the picks spent on Kessel and how the value of 1st round picks cannot be correlated to that of an established player:
1. Prior to the season starting, all 1st round picks are equal in value. That is, they provide a player selection at some point between 1-30.
2. These picks gain some relative value as the season progresses, due to projections being made as to the final standings of each team.
3. These picks have a calculated value once the Stanley Cup has been awarded. Players who COULD be available at each draft pick selection are then used to ascribe additional relative value to the pick.
4. Once the player has been selected, there is no concrete calculated value available, only relative value. The player will either develop according to projections or they will not.
This is the risk inherent in a draft situation with humans being the commodities that are being assigned value.
Kessel is the product of 3 years pro development time prior to becoming a Toronto Maple Leaf. This means that, at the time the trade was made, the team traded what could have been the 1st-30th draft selection (and you needed one of those to get Kessel into the league) and then an additional 1st and 2nd (to remove the risk inherent in picking a player and hoping they pan out). This was the value of Kessel to both Toronto and Boston.
There is now a value attached to those picks relative to established players who, for the purposes of this argument, are in the RFA range.
This is different, though, from saying that the Leafs traded Seguin/Hamilton/Knight for Kessel - they did not. The assets were traded prior to them having any actual value beyond "2 selections in the top 30 selections of the draft in subsequent years".
You cannot say that two firsts and a second are of more or less value than Phil Kessel without the benefit of hindsight; we use the value of the players selected as a proxy for this, or we use the draft selection rank to ascribe some kind of interim value - this is how the value of draft picks and value of what they turn into is an appropriate correlation.
This is not to say, however, that you can point to a player who's been in the league for 10 years and say "well he was selected in the 1st round" (Komisarek, for example) and that therefore he has high intrinsic value; he must have value assigned based on his playing resume. If you can get a first round pick for one of those types of players... then you now have common terminology based on picks and players in this scenario as well.
I agree with most of your post but not all of it (what I highlighted). Certain things were done and not done which helped facilitate where we are in the standings right now.
Nope, I backed up my posts as to why certain things were done (or not done to be more specific) to help this team tank and you never responded. Just because you still don't understand or agree with me doesn't mean I'm trolling Frankie.
you've backed up nothing and ran away from many debates.
there's nothing to understand or even agree or disagree with. you don't even have a point, you're just trolling.
I agree with most of your post but not all of it (what I highlighted). Certain things were done and not done which helped facilitate where we are in the standings right now.
So.....
If you are saying that the Leafs have purposely attempted to lose in order to get the best possible draft pick, you will have to prove that assertion - because there are events that occurred that are counter-intuitive to that assertion.
Specifically:
In two of the years that you purport the team to have tried to lose to improve their draft pick, they did not own their first round picks and did not have them prior to the start of the season. The team lost a lot, but not on purpose ... unless Chiarelli has incriminating photos of Burke or something.
What do you think "tanking" is? One part is losing, but the other part that makes it tanking is doing it on purpose, and I think that's the concept that people are contesting with you.
you've backed up nothing and ran away from many debates.
there's nothing to understand or even agree or disagree with. you don't even have a point, you're just trolling.
Nope you never gave a straight answer after we went through this the last time, you just continue to jump into threads calling people trolls after you've backed out of debates. Here's my original post because it's obvious you need a refresher...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine
No there is plenty of logic behind what I've said Frankie, here's just a little example.
1. Last season we gave up the 9th overall pick to Boston, meaning we finished 22nd overall
2. The season before we gave up the 2nd overall pick to Boston, meaning we finished 29th overall
3. The season before that one we picked at 7th overall (Kadri), meaning we finished 24th overall
4. And lastly another 7th overall (we moved up this year to take Schenn at 5th), meaning we finished 24th overall
Looking at the above last four finishes/seasons one can assume three types of outcomes. (which are all possible)
A. The team is on the way up
B. The team is somewhat neutral
C. The team is on the way down
Now I know this might sound crazy to some but management discusses these possible outcomes (A, B and C), they did so before they traded our 1st's for Kessel because of worse case scenarios but guess what Frankie, they also discuss these outcomes every year. Why you ask? Because we're still rebuilding, going to be drafting and the team needs to be assessed all the time plus at various points during the season depending on how we are playing. Lets move on....
Next Burke did not sign a veteran goalie to start this season, he could have easily re-signed Giguere (he wanted to stay) or easily signed another one, you know just in case. Instead he decided to ride two young unproven goalies with very little experience under their belts....
Fast forward a little later and Reimer (our starter) gets his bell rung by Gionta, went out injured for a good chunk of the season. What did Burke do to remedy this? Yep you guessed it, nothing. They called up another even more unproven goalie in Scrivens.
Two nights back Gus started against Carolina, he has has a career .888 SV% against them, Reimer who has a career .949 SV% against the same team came down with an upper body injury. Pretty good timing I'd say if you're looking to move up into the top 5 of the draft.
If you are saying that the Leafs have purposely attempted to lose in order to get the best possible draft pick, you will have to prove that assertion - because there are events that occurred that are counter-intuitive to that assertion.
Specifically:
In two of the years that you purport the team to have tried to lose to improve their draft pick, they did not own their first round picks and did not have them prior to the start of the season. The team lost a lot, but not on purpose ... unless Chiarelli has incriminating photos of Burke or something.
What do you think "tanking" is? One part is losing, but the other part that makes it tanking is doing it on purpose, and I think that's the concept that people are contesting with you.
The team did very well despite Reimer going down at the end of October; there was no perceived need to get a goalie until February, when the team started to crap the bed - January was a very good month for Gustavsson.
Based on Reimer's play over the second half of last season, they decided to have him be the #1 goalie, so there was no looking for another option. Gus could have reasonably expected to play a backup role.
At the deadline, what difference-making goalie was available who had posted numbers better than what we had already? Remember there are 5 goalies in the system at this point in time - Reimer, Gus, Scrivens, Rynnas and Owuya, all of whom need to have a spot to play.
I think that if they were really trying to lose then the coach wouldn't have been fired, Gustavsson would have played a whole heck of a lot more down the stretch, and I have a hard time believing that all the injuries that happened were on purpose... unless Burke's in the back room breaking fingers and separating shoulders...
In any event, if they ARE losing on purpose they're doing a terrible job of it by having already traded away their picks in 09 and 10.
Other than not making a goaltending improvement (which is neither here nor there), what proves they were actually tanking rather than just losing?
The Leafs lack talent. In 4 years Burke has signed FAs and made trades and re-signed players an drafted players and the vast majority simply are not that talented.
When he says he turned down 4 draft picks for those players it's amazing to me.
These kind of threads are getting old, fast. Burke was given a team of sloppy, mediocre vets that were on the way out. Since then he has turned them into a young team with plenty of room to mature and develop.
Yes, the lineup needs to be infused with some leadership, grit and a 1C but to think that the "4 draft picks" he could have gotten would have saved the franchise is a joke. Burke said in his conference today the teams that were offering them were in the 26-30 range.
26-30 range is a MAYBE NHL player, not a franchise saving "talent".
These kind of threads are getting old, fast. Burke was given a team of sloppy, mediocre vets that were on the way out. Since then he has turned them into a young team with plenty of room to mature and develop.
Yes, the lineup needs to be infused with some leadership, grit and a 1C but to think that the "4 draft picks" he could have gotten would have saved the franchise is a joke. Burke said in his conference today the teams that were offering them were in the 26-30 range.
26-30 range is a MAYBE NHL player, not a franchise saving "talent".
I'd rather have those picks then anyone on the roster. Honestly no one on this team shows any signs of improving they have all reached their level.
PLUS you could package those picks and MOVE UP in the draft to get a better talent.
This is a deep draft if you have picks:
#5
#26
#27
#28
#30
That's not bad IF YOU ARE REBUILDING. The Leafs should have been picking high since Burke arrived. Seguin should already be on the team lol.
Package 26 27 28 30 for a pick around 10?
That's not bad.
How will this team improve?
They have very average players throughout the lineup.
The thing is look at PIT they lose Crosby they still play well. The problem with the Leafs is Burke thinks his players are better then they are. He never commits to rebuilding imagine if he doesn't make the Kessel deal. He overestimated how much Kessel contributes to a team.
The point is EVEN if the Leafs snuck into the playoffs this year so what?????? They should be contending for the cup every year not sneaking into the playoffs lol. They should be like DET or PIT contending every year not just barely getting into the playoffs.
Burke is not a failure he is a the a ginormous failure. How is he going make this team a contender hire more buddies to be assistant GMs? Utter and complete failure.
Only in Toronto would he be allowed another year. People are so desperate for a winner they talk like the Leafs have talent - young talent etc... young talent = Seguin.
Nope you never gave a straight answer after we went through this the last time, you just continue to jump into threads calling people trolls after you've backed out of debates. Here's my original post because it's obvious you need a refresher...
give us the link to the thread you copied your post from.
what you're saying is so far out there, you can't possibly believe it. you're simply trolling and trying to get under people's skin.
