HFBoards

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

Mike Keenan

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2003, 11:28 AM
  #51
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
"Dar's right. Once again, your stating your opinion as being fact. You're saying that the Leafs will surely play only a couple of playoff rounds.
How do know this? How can you say for sure that the Leafs won't make it to Finals? How do you know Ferguson can't improve the team without trading our top propects?
The fact is you don't know"


Because I'm realistic about the team. They are not going to get those top defensemen cheaply, they will have to give up big parts of their current team (even then, it would have be hard) or guys like Steen and Colaiacovo. Realisticlly, what #1 D-man (cause thats what they need) could Ferguson get without gutting the Leafs system?

I'll go so far as to bet you - if the Leafs win the cup without gutting their develpment system (ie - Steen, Stajan, Tellqvist, Colaiacovo, Kondratiev and Bell are still there) I'll leave the boards, what are you willing to put up?

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 11:36 AM
  #52
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
"Dar's right. Once again, your stating your opinion as being fact. You're saying that the Leafs will surely play only a couple of playoff rounds.
How do know this? How can you say for sure that the Leafs won't make it to Finals? How do you know Ferguson can't improve the team without trading our top propects?
The fact is you don't know"


Because I'm realistic about the team. They are not going to get those top defensemen cheaply, they will have to give up big parts of their current team (even then, it would have be hard) or guys like Steen and Colaiacovo. Realisticlly, what #1 D-man (cause thats what they need) could Ferguson get without gutting the Leafs system?

I'll go so far as to bet you - if the Leafs win the cup without gutting their develpment system (ie - Steen, Stajan, Tellqvist, Colaiacovo, Kondratiev and Bell are still there) I'll leave the boards, what are you willing to put up?
That if they blow up the team by getting rid of Belfour, Sundin, Mogilny, Roberts etc this year for draft picks I'll do the same.

Dar is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 11:54 AM
  #53
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
Dar - I never said they WILL, I said they should.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 12:40 PM
  #54
loveshack2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old School
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
loveshack2 - do you honestly think the Leafs are serious cup contenders this year? And given the age of the core of the team and the fact that next season probably won't happen, do you really think theres much point in making a run to the second round?
Yes. Yes I do. If they can make a run to the second round then there's a chance that they'll make the third round. And if they make the third round then there's still a chance they'll make the Cup final. Trading away your talent for draft picks is in no way a guarantee of success. If you rebuild there is an equally good chance that the Leafs will be horrible in 5yrs as there is that they'll be great in 5yrs.

loveshack2 is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 12:40 PM
  #55
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
I'll go so far as to bet you - if the Leafs win the cup without gutting their develpment system (ie - Steen, Stajan, Tellqvist, Colaiacovo, Kondratiev and Bell are still there) I'll leave the boards, what are you willing to put up?
If the Leafs win the Cup this year, you'd leave the boards anyway.

You wouldn't have any reason to post here anymore.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 12:48 PM
  #56
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
loveshack2 - chance doesn't = GOOD chance. Unfortunatly their core is old and injury prone (I hate to say it, but Nieuwendyk, Antropov, Mogilny, and Renberg have already been hurt this year and Nolan looks hurt). And so far this year they havn't been able to beat the teams they will have to go to the finals (Flyers and Devils).

Leaf Army - Either you think they can win it this year (the only reason building for hte future doesn't make sense in their position) or you want to see them get to the second or third round and get eliminated (which I really don't understand). So, if you think they will win the cup (ie - blowing up the team doesn't make sense) bet me. Put your money where you mouth is. I would love to see them win the cup, but not at the expense of their development system and the next 10 years.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 12:57 PM
  #57
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
loveshack2 - chance doesn't = GOOD chance. Unfortunatly their core is old and injury prone (I hate to say it, but Nieuwendyk, Antropov, Mogilny, and Renberg have already been hurt this year and Nolan looks hurt). And so far this year they havn't been able to beat the teams they will have to go to the finals (Flyers and Devils).

Leaf Army - Either you think they can win it this year (the only reason building for hte future doesn't make sense in their position) or you want to see them get to the second or third round and get eliminated (which I really don't understand). So, if you think they will win the cup (ie - blowing up the team doesn't make sense) bet me. Put your money where you mouth is. I would love to see them win the cup, but not at the expense of their development system and the next 10 years.
Yeah, that's a fair bet. How about, if the Leafs make it to the playoffs, he stays, you go.

Dar is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 01:04 PM
  #58
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
If the Leafs aren't going to win the cup, then whats the point. They are a vet team, next season won't happen - its NOW or NEVER for this team. So unless you think they are going to win then blowing up the team makes sense.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 02:54 PM
  #59
Leaf 50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: N.B.
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Well ,Sluggo ,I wouldn,t say you,re wrong or right about blowing up the tem.True, Ottawa,Atlanta,Tampa ,etc. improved through the draft ,but that,s not gonna happen in Toronto because each playoff round is $$$$
,and that,s the bottom line.As previously pointed out,you and I can only PREDICT how far this current team will go ( did you expect ,for example , the Ducks to be there last Spring?) Time will tell ,but I wouldn,t expect a whole lot of changes between now and March unless Chickenlittle is right.
By the way ,how old was the last Leaf goalie to win a Cup ???
Joey, just think ,if the Leafs become the Laffs again , in a couple of years they can draft Crosby ,and we Maritimers will really be happy!

Leaf 50 is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 02:58 PM
  #60
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
"By the way ,how old was the last Leaf goalie to win a Cup ???"

Different NHL.

"Joey, just think ,if the Leafs become the Laffs again , in a couple of years they can draft Crosby ,and we Maritimers will really be happy!"

Don't think that possibility hasn't crossed my mind. The thing is - if the Leafs keep guys like Sundin when that time comes they'll be too good to be able to draft him, but not good enough to win.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 03:06 PM
  #61
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
I just looked up which draft Sidney Crosby is elagible for, and its the 2005 (I thought it was the 2006). In that case I'd change my stragaty with the trading a bit. Still move all the vets I've talked about (which would also get the Leafs at least a 14th pick in 2004, which would get you a solid prospect) but load up on first round picks for the 2005 draft, trade down if they have to etc.... and go for Crosby. He'd be the player I was targeting.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 03:43 PM
  #62
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
chance doesn't = GOOD chance.
I say they have a good chance. Although I realize a lot of people disagree with me.

I just think this is the best team we've had since Quinn has been here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
And so far this year they havn't been able to beat the teams they will have to go to the finals (Flyers and Devils).
We haven't beaten the Devils? Big deal. We've played them twice and haven't lost either. What's your point?

The Flyers? Didn't we humilate them the first time we played them last year? In the end it didn't mean a damned thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
I would love to see them win the cup, but not at the expense of their development system and the next 10 years.
Who said anything about trading our prospects. I'm against trading our top prospects.

Speaking of sacrificing the next 10 years, your plan will have us miss the playoffs for 10 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
In that case I'd change my stragaty with the trading a bit. Still move all the vets I've talked about (which would also get the Leafs at least a 14th pick in 2004, which would get you a solid prospect) but load up on first round picks for the 2005 draft, trade down if they have to etc.... and go for Crosby.
That's your plan? Brilliant.

Every team in the league's gonna want Crosby.

You think you could aquire a couple 1st round picks, wave a magic wand, cast a spell on the 29 other GMs and poof- Leafs draft Crosby.

You think that the Leafs could trade all their veterans for young guys and everything would automatically fall into place and the we'd be on our way to a dynasty.

Your plan wouldn't make us any better. It would just make us younger. That's it.

We might be better in 5 or 10 years. We might not be. What you fail to realize is that there are no gaurantees.

Anyway that's basically it. I've already wasted too much time on this conversation. I've said everything I want to say.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 04:33 PM
  #63
monkey_00*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country:
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey24
Fare enough about Sullivan and Smith, but common Jason Smith and Steve sullivan I doubt would have turnt into the players they are today with out a change of teams. Now you can beat that horse to death if you like but that is still not getting to the point I have made that Quinn has done alot for this franchise and does deserve credit for it.. And Slugo Changing comfrences isn't what made this team earn over 90 points each season since Quinn took over Changing Comfrences didn't really help Toronto point wize if anything it would just change the position they landed in the playoffs and I doubt that would change much either. To be honst I refuse to even start a debate about anything with you because you fail to see anyone elses points and turn a blind eye to any facts that prove you wrong 99.9 - 100 percent of the time so I am kinda voiding your posts at the moment until you prove other wise.
You're avoiding my posts?....then why did you even bother responding to this one?.........Steve Sullivan was already a very effective player in Toronto just that Pat Quinn wasn't using him properly like with current players like captain Mats Sundin........I'm almost willing to bet anyone in here that IF the Leafs decided to trade away Sundin to another club you would start to see this guy tear up the League in scoring causing Leafs fans everywhere to ask; "Why wasn't he scoring like this when he was playing for Toronto?".........If you don't believe me here on this point then ask yourselves this question; "Why is it everytime Mats Sundin plays for the Swdish National Team he's ALWAYS their best player?"...and this is with guys like Forsberg and Naslund playing on their team.........

Jason Smith wasn't yet the player with Toronto that he is today with the Edmonton Oilers but this just proves another point about Pat Quinn and that is he doesn't have the patience to be dealing with young hockey players....if he has a choice between a young player and a veteran, 9-times-out-of-10 Pat Quinn goes with the Vet........everybody in here keeps talking about how we need somemore help on our defence and how much better would it be if we had Jason Smith playing there?................

Last year we had Trevor Kidd as our backup........The Leafs were one of the better teams in the NHL with a winning record HOWEVER Trevor Kidd had a losing record and NOT ONLY THAT....Not only that BUT in 11-NHL seaons Trevor Kidd has had a winning record in ONLY 2 seasons of play....that's enough about Kidd I have nothing else to say here on the matter.

Cheers!~

monkey_00

monkey_00* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 05:00 PM
  #64
loveshack2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old School
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
I just looked up which draft Sidney Crosby is elagible for, and its the 2005 (I thought it was the 2006). In that case I'd change my stragaty with the trading a bit. Still move all the vets I've talked about (which would also get the Leafs at least a 14th pick in 2004, which would get you a solid prospect) but load up on first round picks for the 2005 draft, trade down if they have to etc.... and go for Crosby. He'd be the player I was targeting.

Ok fine. Obviously you have your opinion and that's not going to change. But please if you wouldnt mind to back up your position, could you name a team in the NHL that was good, then blew itself up, rebuilt, and has become good again? The only one that I can think of off the top is Vancouver but it's taken them about 8yrs to return to respectability and they didnt even draft any of their most important players (Naslund, Morrison, Bertuzzi, Jovanovski, Cloutier). And although they're a good team, they havent' made it back to the finals yet.


However if we look at the teams that do win the Cup such as Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Dallas what do you we find? Right, veteran-laden squads. Heck look at Anaheim after years of mediocrity, last year they added some quality veterans named Neidermayer, Thomas, Oates, and Ozolinsh. They go on to the Cup finals and those players were huge performers for them in the playoffs.

loveshack2 is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 05:10 PM
  #65
monkey_00*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country:
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveshack2
Ok fine. Obviously you have your opinion and that's not going to change. But please if you wouldnt mind to back up your position, could you name a team in the NHL that was good, then blew itself up, rebuilt, and has become good again? The only one that I can think of off the top is Vancouver but it's taken them about 8yrs to return to respectability and they didnt even draft any of their most important players (Naslund, Morrison, Bertuzzi, Jovanovski, Cloutier). And although they're a good team, they havent' made it back to the finals yet.


However if we look at the teams that do win the Cup such as Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Dallas what do you we find? Right, veteran-laden squads. Heck look at Anaheim after years of mediocrity, last year they added some quality veterans named Neidermayer, Thomas, Oates, and Ozolinsh. They go on to the Cup finals and those players were huge performers for them in the playoffs.
loveshack2............

Just goes to show that you can be best at drafting and make some great trades as well but when it comes right down to it you still have to go out and sign up some free agents which only the wealthy clubs in the NHL can afford to do.....you're team must be able and willing to spend the extra Bucks to sign up a few of these but even that's no guarantee of Stanley Championships...all it does is improve your Odds of winning it all and that is it.

Cheers!~

monkey_00

monkey_00* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 05:55 PM
  #66
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
"I say they have a good chance"

I have bridge you might be interested in buying.

"We haven't beaten the Devils? Big deal. We've played them twice and haven't lost either. What's your point?
The Flyers? Didn't we humilate them the first time we played them last year? In the end it didn't mean a damned thing"


And the second time they didn't have their best player and arguably their second best player on the ice, and all the leafs could do was tie them. The Flyers are a team the Leafs have to beat and having getting humilated in the play off they got humilated again this season. If they are going ANYWHERE they need to beat those teams, and so far they havn't been able too.

"Who said anything about trading our prospects. I'm against trading our top prospects.
Speaking of sacrificing the next 10 years, your plan will have us miss the playoffs for 10 years"


First the Leafs need a top defenseman if they are going to go anywhere, how would you get him without trading the prospects? And missing ten years by blowing up the team now is a little..... over exagerating. Maybe 5 years they'd miss the playoffs, but they'd have a future.

"You think that the Leafs could trade all their veterans for young guys and everything would automatically fall into place and the we'd be on our way to a dynasty.
Your plan wouldn't make us any better. It would just make us younger. That's it.
We might be better in 5 or 10 years. We might not be. What you fail to realize is that there are no gaurantees"

No, its not a gaurantee, but they'd have a much better chance of improve for the future then winning the cup now, and by not doing that they aren't going to do either. Great plan.

"Ok fine. Obviously you have your opinion and that's not going to change. But please if you wouldnt mind to back up your position, could you name a team in the NHL that was good, then blew itself up, rebuilt, and has become good again?"

Every team thats good now or is on the vergue of becoming a top team went through a building or rebuilding period. There's away the exception here and there, but for the most part winning teams are built through the draft, on a base of early draft picks. If the Leafs hadn't lucked out and gotten Sundin in that deal they would have doing that in the late 90's, however because they got that player through a trade (and they won't get that lucky again) they didn't have to tank to get him, and like I said, I honestly think that move has......fooled a lot of Leaf fans into under valuing the draft.

"However if we look at the teams that do win the Cup such as Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Dallas what do you we find? Right, veteran-laden squads"

And where did they get those vets? The draft. And when did they get them? When they were getting high draft picks becaues they weren't playing well. The whole team isn't going to be built that way, but the core does because you can't depend on trades to bring in those players in (and when you can trade for them, its a bonus). All these players were drafted by their teams - Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Kozlov Osgood, Brodeur, Niedermayer, Elias, Guerin, Rolston, Modano, Lehtinen, Langenbrunner, Hatcher, Sakic, Hejduk, Drury, Foote. The cores of those winning teams were drafted by those teams during years where they missed the playoffs. Which teams are going to be the NHL powerhouses in a couple years - Senators, Lightning, Panthers etc... The teams that have a lot of great young talent accquired through the drafts. Making smart trades and getting the right UFA's is important, but the cores of the cup winning teams are drafted. And considering there will be a salary cap drafted players will become even more valuable.

And yes, I know its 50/50 that they would get Crosby (at BEST). However if they do nothing they WON'T get him and even if they don't they will have a good group of young talent and the base needed to become that cup winning team down the road. And, if I was GM, come the 2005 draft I'd willing to make almost any deal to get that #1 pick and we've see that teams are always willing to give up those picks if you offer the right deal.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 06:05 PM
  #67
Joey24
Registered User
 
Joey24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Zealand
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,421
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Joey24
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey_00
You're avoiding my posts?....then why did you even bother responding to this one?.........Steve Sullivan was already a very effective player in Toronto just that Pat Quinn wasn't using him properly like with current players like captain Mats Sundin........I'm almost willing to bet anyone in here that IF the Leafs decided to trade away Sundin to another club you would start to see this guy tear up the League in scoring causing Leafs fans everywhere to ask; "Why wasn't he scoring like this when he was playing for Toronto?".........If you don't believe me here on this point then ask yourselves this question; "Why is it everytime Mats Sundin plays for the Swdish National Team he's ALWAYS their best player?"...and this is with guys like Forsberg and Naslund playing on their team.........

Jason Smith wasn't yet the player with Toronto that he is today with the Edmonton Oilers but this just proves another point about Pat Quinn and that is he doesn't have the patience to be dealing with young hockey players....if he has a choice between a young player and a veteran, 9-times-out-of-10 Pat Quinn goes with the Vet........everybody in here keeps talking about how we need somemore help on our defence and how much better would it be if we had Jason Smith playing there?................

Last year we had Trevor Kidd as our backup........The Leafs were one of the better teams in the NHL with a winning record HOWEVER Trevor Kidd had a losing record and NOT ONLY THAT....Not only that BUT in 11-NHL seaons Trevor Kidd has had a winning record in ONLY 2 seasons of play....that's enough about Kidd I have nothing else to say here on the matter.

Cheers!~

monkey_00
Monkey I am doing anything but avoiding your posts. I didn't like the Sullivan move either but at the time Quinn was going bigger because of the way the leafs got bullied by the Devils the previous season. The Jason Smith deal was done because he wasn't doing anything for us. Smith was playing a step below what Jackman is playing now and didn't look like he would stick with the club at all, or be the player many thought he would be.
I am surprised you guys aren't calling Quinn down for getting rid of Cory Cross. I mean look how good he's playing for the Oilers now. What's all this talk about players like Trevor Kidd and such? Kidd has had family problems and also played for some bad teams. When Trevor Kidd is on his game he is good. Would I rather Kidd over Cory Shwab? Probably not. Am I unhappy we have Kidd? No, not really because Belfour is going to eat up most of the games any how soo it's not really a big deal and if Kidd falters we have Telly to back him up that's even if the leafs decide to keep Kidd around. Oh PS monkey don't come on here saying stuff that I am avoiding peoples posts because I never have and never will and if someone calls me on somthing I'm there to back up what I bealive to be right and if I am proven wrong 10 out of 10 times I am willing to admit it. Are you? oh and I don't even know what post your referring to so try enlightning me on what I am suposedly avoiding please.

Joey24 is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 06:12 PM
  #68
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
" I didn't like the Sullivan move either but at the time Quinn was going bigger because of the way the leafs got bullied by the Devils the previous season. The Jason Smith deal was done because he wasn't doing anything for us see Jackman well that's what smith was doing for us at a lesser extent and at the time it looked like he was not going to be sticking with the team"

Then he should have traded Sullivan and gotten something for him. Putting him one waviers and letting go for free was the worst thing he could have done. Smith was also young and wasn't being given a chance to improve (like Jackman he was on the bottom pairing with bad patners). Same with McCauley, give the young players alittle responsiblity and put them in a more important role on the team and they play better. He doesn't know how to handle young players.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-11-2003, 09:40 PM
  #69
monkey_00*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country:
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
" I didn't like the Sullivan move either but at the time Quinn was going bigger because of the way the leafs got bullied by the Devils the previous season. The Jason Smith deal was done because he wasn't doing anything for us see Jackman well that's what smith was doing for us at a lesser extent and at the time it looked like he was not going to be sticking with the team"

Then he should have traded Sullivan and gotten something for him. Putting him one waviers and letting go for free was the worst thing he could have done. Smith was also young and wasn't being given a chance to improve (like Jackman he was on the bottom pairing with bad patners). Same with McCauley, give the young players alittle responsiblity and put them in a more important role on the team and they play better. He doesn't know how to handle young players.
sluggo.......

I agree with everything you've said here.......when it comes to handling the young players Quinn doesn't want anything to do with them.........He just keeps getting rid of our Future here in Toronto but what does Quinn really care?......He knows the writing is on the Wall for him so when he finally gets fired from the Leafs so what if the Leafs have no future?...By that time it won't be Pat Quinn's problem... it will be somebody elses problem................Oh well.

Cheers!~

monkey_00

monkey_00* is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 12:18 AM
  #70
DocHolliday
Registered User
 
DocHolliday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey_00
sluggo.......

I agree with everything you've said here.......when it comes to handling the young players Quinn doesn't want anything to do with them.........He just keeps getting rid of our Future here in Toronto but what does Quinn really care?......He knows the writing is on the Wall for him so when he finally gets fired from the Leafs so what if the Leafs have no future?...By that time it won't be Pat Quinn's problem... it will be somebody elses problem................Oh well.

Cheers!~

monkey_00
People quickly forget that we've had guys like Kaberle, Markov and Antropov blossom under Quinn. We knew what we were giving away in Mike Johnson, we just thought Tucker was the more rouded player. McCauley was given ample opportunity to produce and didn't. Quinn has developed a bunch of younger players. Some traded, not because he couldn't handle them, but because they weren't what we needed, or what we thought we needed. And to question Quinn's dedication is utterly rediculous. If you think he doesn't care about the future of the team, you're an absolute fool.

DocHolliday is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 05:13 AM
  #71
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
And where did they get those vets? The draft. And when did they get them? When they were getting high draft picks becaues they weren't playing well. The whole team isn't going to be built that way, but the core does because you can't depend on trades to bring in those players in (and when you can trade for them, its a bonus). All these players were drafted by their teams - Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Kozlov Osgood, Brodeur, Niedermayer, Elias, Guerin, Rolston, Modano, Lehtinen, Langenbrunner, Hatcher, Sakic, Hejduk, Drury, Foote. The cores of those winning teams were drafted by those teams during years where they missed the playoffs.
If you're going to make an argument, know your facts. So, those teams got their players by drafting high? Hmmm...let's see:
Yzerman, 4th
Lidstrom, 53rd
Fedorov, 74th
Kozlov, 45th
Osgood, 54th
Brodeur, 20th
Niedermayer, 3rd
Elias, 51st
Guerin, 5th
Rolston, 11th
Modano, 1st
Lehtinen, 88th
Langenbrunner, 35th
Hatcher, 8th
Sakic, 15th
Hejduk, 87th
Drury, 72nd
Foote, 22nd

So, tell us, in that list of names "you" suggested were core reason for winning the cup, how does tanking it accomplish anything? Hard to argue seeing as only 5 of them are top ten. The majoriity of the rest are 2nd round or worse.

Let me guess Sluggo, you'll skip this point to go on to another,

Dar is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 05:44 AM
  #72
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
"People quickly forget that we've had guys like Kaberle, Markov and Antropov blossom under Quinn"

I wouldn't put Markov in that group, he blossomed away from the Leafs and Antropov has yet to have a break out season. So basically Quinn has given away 4-6 young players that have become good players on other teams and allowed one, one-way defenseman blossom with the Leafs. Good job.

"McCauley was given ample opportunity to produce and didn't"

On 3rd and 4th lines with linemates that weren't offensive players. Once he gets top 6 ice time and more skilled linemates with the Sharks he starts producing.

Dar - yes not all those players are high picks, but look at franchise players for each team, the star players that carried the teams - Yzerman, Sakic, Hatcher, Guerin, Niedermayer, Modano, Brodeur -all first round, top 10 picks (excepct Sakic and Brodeur). Who is that player for the Leafs? Sundin. Once hes gone who do the Leafs have in their system who can be that player? Had they never got Sundin they would have tanked and had a chance to get that player through the draft in the mid-90's. Unless they get extremely lucky again and make a trade for another 22-23 year old superstar they are going to have to get that play through the draft.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 06:01 AM
  #73
think-blue-
Registered User
 
think-blue-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,159
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to think-blue-
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
"People quickly forget that we've had guys like Kaberle, Markov and Antropov blossom under Quinn"

I wouldn't put Markov in that group, he blossomed away from the Leafs and Antropov has yet to have a break out season. So basically Quinn has given away 4-6 young players that have become good players on other teams and allowed one, one-way defenseman blossom with the Leafs. Good job.
No, Markov's value was significant enough to land what was perceived to be a good #2 Center at the time and a good roleplayer in Travis Green. Markov did blossom under Quinn. Quinn has also only been a coach of this team for 5 years. He arrived here and had nothing much in the system - you can't develop what you don't have. In the years he's been GM, he's drafted the likes of Boyes, Tellan, Stajan, Steen, Colaiacovo. All those players are just now getting ready to start their NHL careers. Once again, your agenda against Quinn is clouding your judgement.

And yes, Antropov broke out last year. 45-50 points show signs of a 2nd liner in the league. Whether he will take the next step is based moreso on his health than the role Quinn gives him. But let me guess, Quinn is at fault for Nik's health issues too.

Quote:
"McCauley was given ample opportunity to produce and didn't"

On 3rd and 4th lines with linemates that weren't offensive players. Once he gets top 6 ice time and more skilled linemates with the Sharks he starts producing.
McCauley had plenty of chance to repeat what he did in the playoffs in 2002. He was given the 2nd line C job at the start of last season and failed. Only you can forget that. Im glad that he started producing in SJ, but he, much like Sullivan and Modin, were players not pulling their weight here.

think-blue- is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 06:09 AM
  #74
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
"No, Markov's value was significant enough to land what was perceived to be a good #2 Center at the time and a good roleplayer in Travis Green. Markov did blossom under Quinn. Quinn has also only been a coach of this team for 5 years. He arrived here and had nothing much in the system - you can't develop what you don't have"

Markov was good with the Leafs but he got better with other teams. And how can you say teh Leafs had no young talent for him to develop -Sullivan, Modin, Markov, Kaberle, Smith, McCauley. There weren't any in St. Johns, but they had a lot of young talent on the team.

"In the years he's been GM, he's drafted the likes of Boyes, Tellan, Stajan, Steen, Colaiacovo. All those players are just now getting ready to start their NHL careers. Once again, your agenda against Quinn is clouding your judgement"

Trapp gets the credit for most of those players, and one of the few Quinn did draft (Boyes) was given away for a big, skating back injury.

"Antropov broke out last year. 45-50 points show signs of a 2nd liner in the league"

Antorpov had 44 pts last year, once he gets 50-60 he'll have broken out. This is the make it or break it year for Antropov.

"McCauley had plenty of chance to repeat what he did in the playoffs in 2002. He was given the 2nd line C job at the start of last season and failed. Only you can forget that. Im glad that he started producing in SJ, but he, much like Sullivan and Modin, were players not pulling their weight here."

Ya, when you see a lot of young players not producing here but doing it as soon as they get moved it really shows that its the players not the coach or the position he put them in here. I guess they wanted out and just played bad so he'd trade them.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 06:29 AM
  #75
think-blue-
Registered User
 
think-blue-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,159
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to think-blue-
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggo
"No, Markov's value was significant enough to land what was perceived to be a good #2 Center at the time and a good roleplayer in Travis Green. Markov did blossom under Quinn. Quinn has also only been a coach of this team for 5 years. He arrived here and had nothing much in the system - you can't develop what you don't have"

Markov was good with the Leafs but he got better with other teams. And how can you say teh Leafs had no young talent for him to develop -Sullivan, Modin, Markov, Kaberle, Smith, McCauley. There weren't any in St. Johns, but they had a lot of young talent on the team.
Sullivan was too small, became a problem in the dressing room (you listen to Watters so you would know this) and was rid of. When sullivan does anything of significance on a team that matters in a game that matters, then come back and tell me he was a great loss.

What did Modin do besides putting up 30 points playing with Mats Sundin? Maybe his 0 points in 8 playoff games helped.

Smith was a Mike Smith trade.

McCauley, as I've explained, was not going to be much more than a role player here. Quinn gave him a chance but he didn't do much with it. Perhaps he should have stuck wtih him, but since Antropov was quickly emerging ahead of him, Amac fell quickly down the depth chart at C.

Quote:
"In the years he's been GM, he's drafted the likes of Boyes, Tellan, Stajan, Steen, Colaiacovo. All those players are just now getting ready to start their NHL careers. Once again, your agenda against Quinn is clouding your judgement"

Trapp gets the credit for most of those players, and one of the few Quinn did draft (Boyes) was given away for a big, skating back injury.
No. I've explained this to you before, but you somehow keep forgetting. Trapp's FIRST draft was last year. This is well documented. Mike Penny and Pat Quinn ran all the drafts prior to last season.

Quote:
"Antropov broke out last year. 45-50 points show signs of a 2nd liner in the league"

Antorpov had 44 pts last year, once he gets 50-60 he'll have broken out. This is the make it or break it year for Antropov.
I disagree. But since there is no universal definition of what a 'breakout' is (and since you cannot prove that a 50-60 pt season is a breakout season) Im not going to get into a circular argument with you. However, logically, coming off two reconstructed knee surgeries and minimal ice time, Antropov emerging as a capable scoring threat last season could be considered a 'breakout' of some sorts.

Quote:
"McCauley had plenty of chance to repeat what he did in the playoffs in 2002. He was given the 2nd line C job at the start of last season and failed. Only you can forget that. Im glad that he started producing in SJ, but he, much like Sullivan and Modin, were players not pulling their weight here."

Ya, when you see a lot of young players not producing here but doing it as soon as they get moved it really shows that its the players not the coach or the position he put them in here. I guess they wanted out and just played bad so he'd trade them.
That must be true.

think-blue- is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:04 PM.

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.