HFBoards

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

The Rebuild/Tank Thread

View Poll Results: Would you accept the Leafs going through a long rebuilding process?
Yes, it's been a long time coming 236 90.08%
No, we have to try to win now 26 9.92%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2008, 07:36 PM
  #26
Suntouchable13
Registered User
 
Suntouchable13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydrowing View Post
Getting a high pick increases our chances of drafting a more skilled player. It is not as likely when teams steal good picks in the later rounds. Being ignorant and not understanding what one needs most is being plain foolish. What is this team going to do, try their best and not make the playoffs? Strategically for the future of this team that is not a good move to make. Do you even honestly see our team competing in the Stanley Cup finals?
If you try 100% and lose, then OK I can accept that at least you tried. Also, a lottery is there for a reason so that teams won't tank on purpose.

Suntouchable13 is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 07:38 PM
  #27
Suntouchable13
Registered User
 
Suntouchable13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slapshot17 View Post
In tanking I'm suggesting trading over-priced underperforming players for draft picks and young players. If it means we don't finish as high in the standings and get a player such as Stamkos then so be it. By no means am I suggesting that the team should not give 100 percent on the ice every night.
What makes anybody think that current management will start trading away vets at this time? At the deadline if they are out of it, sure, but not now.

Suntouchable13 is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 07:46 PM
  #28
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
I HOPE this thread doesn't become a battle as to why we shouldn't but stays on topic.

We should post a few plans from the GM rebuild thread in here

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 07:55 PM
  #29
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntouchable13 View Post
If a team is tanking on purpose they do not deserve any draft picks. Plus there are no gurantees either way. Players bust, and a lot of times you can get excellent players low in the draft. So to me, getting a high draft pick does not do anything. Teams like NJ and DET did not need high draft picks to be where they are/were. Only true losers tank on purpose. If you tank on purpose, you deserve to be mediocore forever.
I agree whole heartedly. However, there's nothing wrong with the fanbase hoping this team goes straight into the crapper.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:02 PM
  #30
Mike1
Registered User
 
Mike1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mississauga,Ontario
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
I'm pro change. The team would be better off getting a shot at a high pick. I don't want to see a run at the end of the year to get into 9th place. Play Raycroft for every game for the rest of the year & put Wozniewski on the powerplay if you have too.

Mike1 is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:04 PM
  #31
Hydrowing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 952
vCash: 500
Honestly, Toskala being injured is the best thing that could've happened to Toronto at the moment. Pogge gets all the playing time, he is becoming confident, and he is putting up great numbers as of late. We're developing Pogge. If Razor is in net, we might increase his stock. Without Toskala's superb goltending, this team will sink, and basically we will get a high pick.

Hydrowing is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:08 PM
  #32
Schenn02
Registered User
 
Schenn02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: abroad
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,732
vCash: 500
Is there any way to find out if a team is tanking on purpose though?

Clearly the Leafs aren't tanking on purpose, they believe they still have a shot at the playoffs

Personally I don't give a damn about the Leafs and where they finish, I simply don't care anymore. And just because its the Leafs, even if we did finish 30th, we'd probably lose the lottery and get like the 2nd pick.

Stamkos ftw!! (although I don't think it will happen).

Schenn02 is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:14 PM
  #33
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
Here is what I want next years lineup to look like:

Things I already know before posing the lineup below (its for the non tank crowd ):

1) Not better then this years lineup
2) Yes it will be a bottom feeder
3) Giving our youth maximum playing time and key situations is the goal

Here goes:

LINEUP:

Steen Welly Tlusty (4.5mil)
Blake Stajan Kulemin (6mil)
Devo Bell Williams (1.5mil)
Kilger Pohl XXXXXX (1.5mil)

Kaberle Coli (5.3mil)
Stralman White (1.5 mil)
Kronwall (Vet D) (1.2 mil)

Toskala (4mil)
(Vet Backup) (500K) Keep Pogge down

TOTAL: 26mil (The buyouts I will mention should cover the minimum)

SIGNINGS, BUYOUTS, AND TRADES

Tucker (Buyout or Trade for picks)
Raycroft (Buyout or Trade for picks)
McCabe (Buyout or Trade for picks)
Kubina (Buyout or Trade for picks)
Pony (Trade for picks)
Antropov (Trade for picks)
Gill (Trade for picks)
Woz (Don't resign)

The buyouts from McCabe, Tucker, Kubina at 2/3's cap hit will add 9.24mil to our overall cap hit.

That brings the total to 26+9.24=35.24mil

The cap basement should be around 41mil next season. Worst case scenario they can pick up a few players here and there to make it to the cap minimum. Another possibility is to keep just one of the buyouts I mentioned above to make the cap min.

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:29 PM
  #34
daethfromabove1979
Registered User
 
daethfromabove1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
guys as much as i want the leafs to come in last place so we can get a possible top 3 draft pick and rebuild and do the same next year, chances are that were going to start doing great and eventually finish in about 9th place in the conference and have nothing to show for. i wanted them to tank last year but look what happened.

nevertheless im gonna keep cheering when they lose because its for the best.

daethfromabove1979 is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:30 PM
  #35
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stajan14 View Post
Is there any way to find out if a team is tanking on purpose though?

Clearly the Leafs aren't tanking on purpose, they believe they still have a shot at the playoffs

Personally I don't give a damn about the Leafs and where they finish, I simply don't care anymore. And just because its the Leafs, even if we did finish 30th, we'd probably lose the lottery and get like the 2nd pick.

Stamkos ftw!! (although I don't think it will happen).
Nothing to cry about if that happens. Getting the 2nd pick is still a really damn good spot to be in.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:35 PM
  #36
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stajan14 View Post
Is there any way to find out if a team is tanking on purpose though?
The way management comes across is "we're going with youth and rebuilding this team"

Look at teams like Chicago, Pitts, LA, Phoenix, etc.

They all went with youth for so many years. They could have easily signed vets to give themselves a much more competitive hockey team. IMO "going with youth" is tanking, especially when year after year they are always picking in the top 5 or 6.

The only exception might be Edmonton who is actually trying to build a competitive team but no UFA'a want to stay or go there.

If Toronto were to say, we've set a self imposed cap of (whatever the minimum was) that alone would create a bottom feeding hockey club for a few seasons.

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:41 PM
  #37
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovetheleafs View Post
I HOPE this thread doesn't become a battle as to why we shouldn't but stays on topic.

We should post a few plans from the GM rebuild thread in here
Hey, congrats on passing 10 k.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:43 PM
  #38
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovetheleafs View Post
The way management comes across is "we're going with youth and rebuilding this team"

Look at teams like Chicago, Pitts, LA, Phoenix, etc.

They all went with youth for so many years. They could have easily signed vets to give themselves a much more competitive hockey team. IMO "going with youth" is tanking, especially when year after year they are always picking in the top 5 or 6.

The only exception might be Edmonton who is actually trying to build a competitive team but no UFA'a want to stay or go there.

If Toronto were to say, we've set a self imposed cap of (whatever the minimum was) that alone would create a bottom feeding hockey club for a few seasons.
This is exactly why a true rebuild will never happen for the Leafs. How could the highest grossing team in profit possibly justify not spending up to the cap every year? I know it hurts the team in a way, but you'll never see them not spending toward the cap.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:53 PM
  #39
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafErikson View Post
Hey, congrats on passing 10 k.
Thanks. I tried to keep it low key and keep on going.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafErikson View Post
This is exactly why a true rebuild will never happen for the Leafs. How could the highest grossing team in profit possibly justify not spending up to the cap every year? I know it hurts the team in a way, but you'll never see them not spending toward the cap.
They can either use that excuse OR just go with a 70% youth based roster. Even if they have high prices players here and there they will be close to the cap (or right on it) AND lose even worse then they are now.

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 08:54 PM
  #40
HellasLEAF
Komarov has cometh..
 
HellasLEAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Greece
Posts: 11,028
vCash: 500
count me in on the re-build. 100%

HellasLEAF is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:02 PM
  #41
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
Lets also look at it this way.

If the firesale/tank is done over TWO seasons (if they need that long)

Half of the vets bought out this year and half the next.

We would then have (if we began selling tomorrow):
  • A top 5 pick in 2008, 2009, and 2010
  • A few extra picks in 2008 and 2009 in the top 40-50 (from the firesale)
  • A nucleus of ,Welly, Steen, Stajan, Tlusty, Kulemin, Stralman, Coli, White, Pogge moving forward.

Of course as time goes on with the high picks, the young nucleus mentioned above will drop down and become good 27-28 year old support players.

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:23 PM
  #42
Acekicker123
Registered User
 
Acekicker123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,512
vCash: 500
Hey guys, a valid point was brought up by Suntouchable about how prospects can turn out to be busts. That's a definite possibility so I thought it would be good to take a look at the recent sucesses of these top 5 picks of a draft many of us are currently aiming for.

The analysis will be very simple. We'll look back upon the top 5 picks from the draft years 1997-2004, as it may be too soon to judge from '05 onwards, and then categorize those players into the following choices:

A) Elite NHL player, perennial all-star
B) Very good NHL player, may make a few all-star appearances
C) Solid NHL player, one of the better ones on a team
D) Average NHL player
E) Borderline NHL player, Bust

Players that are still quite young or may have yet to get a good chance to succeed, I will provide a small range to give a rough guage of their potential.

1997:

1) Joe Thornton- A
2) Patrick Marleau- B
3) Olli Jokinen- A/B
4) Roberto Luongo- A
5) Eric Brewer-C

1998:

1) Vincent Lecavalier- A
2) David Legwand- B
3) Brad Stuart- C
4) Bryan Allen- C
5) Vitali Vishnevsky- D

1999:

1) Patrik Stefan-D
2) Daniel Sedin-A/B
3) Henrik Sedin-A/B
4) Pavel Brendl- E
5) Tim Connolly- B/C

2000:

1) Rick DiPietro- B
2) Dany Heatley- A
3) Marian Gaborik- A
4) Rostislav Klesla- C
5) Raffi Torres- C

2001:

1) Ilya Kovalchuk- A
2) Jason Spezza- A
3) Alexandr Svitov- D/E
4) Stephen Weiss- B
5) Stanislav Chistov- D/E

2002:

1) Rick Nash- A
2) Kari Lehtonen- B
3) Jay Bouwmeester- A
4) Joni Pitkanen- B
5) Ryan Whitney- A/B

2003:

1) Marc-Andre Fleury- B/C
2) Eric Staal- A
3) Nathan Horton- B
4) Nikolai Zherdev- A/B
5) Thomas Vanek- A

2004:

1) Alexander Ovechkin- A
2) Evgeni Malkin- A
3) Cam Barker- B/C
4) Andrew Ladd- C
5) Blake Wheeler- B

Ok, here are the statistical breakdowns of these 40 picks:

A- 13
A/B- 5
B- 8
B/C- 3
C- 6
C/D- 0
D- 2
D/E- 2
E- 1

Essentially, when you're picking a top 5 pick, you really should be aiming for at least a big-time impact all-star. As such, a crude way of measuring success from these figures would be to look at how many times A's, A/B's or B's were selected.

Chance of drafting at least an all-star:
Totalling up A's, A/B's and B's yields 25, where 25/40 = 62.5%.

Chance of drafting at least a solid player who can contribute:
Adding up (A, A/B, B, B/C, C) yields 34, where 34/40 = 85%

Limitations of this method (many):

- Most of these guys are in the 25-30 range, so there's still plenty of time for them to get better or worse
- The rating system is obviously subjective and everyone would have their own opinions
- The general strengths of the draft years are different as well

That being said, it's still pretty clear that the top five of a draft is not as much of a crapshoot as one be led to believe, particularly in a draft as strong as this one. In addition, the Leafs have had a history of making pretty good picks despite the rarity of 1st and 2nd rd picks, and often picking in the bottom half of every round.

This is not at all scientific folks, but I just thought it'd be fun to do (it was) and it would be cool to talk about.

Acekicker123 is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:27 PM
  #43
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acekicker123 View Post

That being said, it's still pretty clear that the top five of a draft is not as much of a crapshoot as one be led to believe, particularly in a draft as strong as this one. In addition, the Leafs have had a history of making pretty good picks despite the rarity of 1st and 2nd rd picks, and often picking in the bottom half of every round.
Exactly.

The higher you pick the more likely you are to get a better hockey prospect (That was pretty obvious). Yes there are busts here and there BUT if your team continually picks within the top 6 eventually you'll have a great young nucleus.

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:30 PM
  #44
LTL
Registered User
 
LTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: D.T
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,288
vCash: 500
Can anyone remember a Stanley Cup winning team or even a finalist that didn't go through a period of 3-5 yrs of losing prior to that run?

An expansion team at the beginning is tanking 99% of the time so that counts.

LTL is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:31 PM
  #45
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,459
vCash: 500
You guys sound like Rangers fans 4 years ago. I feel your pain, it sucks knowing that wins are steps in the wrong direction. Needless to say, I'm grateful for the pre-lockout firesale by NYR management.

Choice is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:31 PM
  #46
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovetheleafs View Post
Can anyone remember a Stanley Cup winning team or even a finalist that didn't go through a period of 3-5 yrs of losing prior to that run?
Maybe if this year's Red Wings make it.

Choice is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:43 PM
  #47
HellasLEAF
Komarov has cometh..
 
HellasLEAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Greece
Posts: 11,028
vCash: 500
anyone on the fence about the rebuild just take a look at the Phoenix Coyotes.

Martin Hanzal - lead Czech team, 85 points in 60 games Red Deer Rebels, and has Antropov size and amazing hands.

Peter Mueller - making huge strides, has all the makings of an elite power forward with a whicked shot.

Blake Wheeler - lead all Minesota as a 16 year old 100 points in 60 odd games. sick offensive ability, he will be in the team next year.

Kyle Turris - they one they are highest on, projected to be like Yzerman only better offensive ability.

there is more but that is of the higher end.

imagine that was the Leafs. it could be the Leafs, we just have to suck for a couple years and trade Sundin.

HellasLEAF is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:45 PM
  #48
HellasLEAF
Komarov has cometh..
 
HellasLEAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Greece
Posts: 11,028
vCash: 500
we had our chance at winning the cup like the Rangers did when salary spending was sky is the limit.

we blew it.

now there can be only one blueprint to building a consistent winning team and stanley cup champion. we just need a gm with the balls to do it.

HellasLEAF is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:45 PM
  #49
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,459
vCash: 500
One thing about a rebuild/firesale is that there's no guarantee you'll get good return for your star vets. Right now, unless Korpikoski turns into something major, you guys fleeced us for Leetch. Not that he was a huge difference maker for the Leafs but neither Immonen or Kondratiev are NHL players.

Choice is offline  
Old
01-04-2008, 09:46 PM
  #50
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HellasLEAF View Post
we had our chance at winning the cup like the Rangers did when salary spending was sky is the limit.

we blew it.

now there can be only one blueprint to building a consistent winning team and stanley cup champion. we just need a gm with the balls to do it.
Even then, as the Rangers proved time and again, you couldn't buy a cup. You needed at least some kind of core in place before you started bringing in the big talent.

Choice 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 04:05 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.