Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

What Do the '06-'07 Ducks Tell Us About the '10-'11 Leafs?

Editor's Note: The '67 Sound takes a look at some of Brian Burke's latest public comments and examines how they apply to his team building philosophy. It's a bit of a longer piece but definitely worth a read.

In various comments over the past week, and in reaction to some typically thoughtful pieces over at Copper N Blue, I have been thinking about who is going to make this Leafs team and what role they are likely to play.  I should also credit various members of PPPPP who are always emphasize that the NHL is not a fantasy league or video game, and team roles are important.  As Brian Burke often likes to refer to his Cup-winning team in Anaheim as a model of how he likes to build a team, I thought I would take a closer look and see what lessons can be learned.  Karina's helpful reference to an outstanding Mirtle article from three years' ago is also a must-read on this front.

Star-divide

On Twitter yesterday, I looked at Burke's assertion in recent radio interviews that the Leafs did not have too much defensive depth with eight established players on one-way contracts because to win in the NHL, you need to have "nine or ten" defencemen; he specifically referenced his Cup winning team in that regard.  I used this as a jumping off for my first "Brian Burke Bluster" (BBB) casefile.  In fact, the Ducks broke camp with three veteran defencemen (Niedermayer, Pronger and O'Donnell); one second-year player who would play a major role (Francois Beauchemin); one AHL journeyman (Joe DiPenta) with only one NHL season under his belt, who would only play another 23 NHL games after '06-'07, and who was making $500,000; one rookie (Shane O'Brien) who was traded midseason and effectively replaced by Ric Jackman in a separate trade; and another aging AHL journeyman/NHL rookie in Kent Huskins.  Ian Moran and Aaron Rome, one at the end of his career and the other at the beginning, both played one game.

So technically yes, Burke was correct.  The Ducks used nine defensemen.  But to compare the Leafs' defence corps this year to the Ducks' Cup-winning defence corps is frankly ludicrous.  As Mirtle emphasized, the Ducks were built not around evenly-spread medium-priced talent, but with a high-priced core surrounded by cheap role-players.  This was nowhere more true than on defence.  The Ducks had two stars (Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger); two steady second-pair types (Francois Beauchemin and Sean O'Donnell); and three low salary, unproven spare parts (DiPenta, O'Brien and Huskins).  That hardly matches the Leafs, who have no less than six medium to high salaried defenders (Dion Phaneuf, Mike Komisarek, Tomas Kaberle, Beauchemin, Jeff Finger, Luke Schenn), another veteran making well-above league minimum in Brett Lebda, and in Carl Gunnarsson a guy who, while cheap, has proven himself capable of Top 4 minutes.   Particularly with Gunnarsson looking at a potential big raise next year, I continue to think the Leafs need to shed at least two high priced defencemen to free up cap space.

What about the forwards?  We all know Burke loves to talk about "Top 6/Bottom 6".  However, one of the Copper N Blue pieces linked above suggests that in reality, most NHL teams run a Top 9, and a 4th line.  The drop in even-strength ice time from the 3rd to the 4th line is often as much or more as the difference between the 1st and 3rd.  What did the Cup-winning Ducks look like?

They actually had a Top 10 and bottom 5.  The Top 10, in order of overall ice time: Teemu Selanne, Andy McDonald, Sami Pahlsson, Chris Kunitz, Rob Niedermayer, Todd Marchant, Ryan Getzlaf, Travis Moen, Dustin Penner and Cory Perry.  Remarkably, every one of these players but Marchant played 81 or 82 games--seriously, this team was ridiculously lucky with its health.  Their even strength ice time saw similar ranks, though Perry, Getzlaf and Penner dropped to the bottom--those three were 4th, 5th and 6th in power play TOI.  So if you go by ice time, the Ducks' Top 6 were Selanne-McDonald-Kunitz (1st line), and Pahlsson-Niedermayer-Moen (2nd line).  Getzlaf-Penner-Perry were the 3rd line, Marchant also significant minutes, while Shawn Thornton-George Parros-Ryan Shannon-"Who the fuck is"-Brad May shuffled in and out of the 4th line/press box and played minimal minutes.  This was NOT a model of "skilled Top 6, truculent Bottom 6".

So what was the model?  Looking at scoring statistics helps tell us what was actually going on with the Ducks.  As everyone knows, what I've called the 2nd line above based on ice-time was the checking line.  While behindthenet.ca does not go back to that season, I'm guessing they would have had ridiculously high qualcomps.  I'm also guessing what I have called the 3rd line received pillow-soft minutes--their average age was under 22 and had 132 NHL games between them coming in.  As a result, the 3rd line of Getzlaf-Penner-Perry ranked 4-5-6 in scoring among forwards, while the 2nd line ranked 7-8-9.

Based on all this, rather than "Top 6/Bottom 6", what I perceive is a Top 9 (plus Marchant)/Bottom 5, with the Top 9 broken down as follows: A true scoring first line (call it Line F), a second checking line (call it Line C), and a third, sheltered scoring line (call it line S).  Line F featured relatively high priced veterans (though Kunitz was pretty young and cheap, a la Kulemin with the Leafs).  Line C was lower-priced veterans (though Niedermayer was earning a healthy $2 million that year).  Line S was cheap kids.  The fourth line (call it Line T for Truculence) was cheap fighters and some guy no one has ever heard of.

So what does this tell us about this year's (and next year's) Leafs?  Who can fill these four lines?  Let's take a guess:

Line F: Tyler Bozak and Phil Kessel seem the only locks here, with Nikolai Kulemin and Kris Versteeg the leading candidates for the last spot.

Line C: Colby Armstrong seems the only lock here, brought in to play the Niedermayer role.  I am still skeptical that Armstrong is that good--the advanced statistics do not suggest that he is an elite shut-down/penalty-killer type.  If he is, however, he could actually justify his contract.  I had been viewing Armstrong as a 3rd liner, which is almost never worth $3 million.  However, IF he can perform as the core of an effective "C" line, $3 million could be justified.  Niedermayer actually led the Ducks' forwards in ice time in '05-'06 and still played a very prominent role on the '06-'07 team, and accounting for inflation Armstrong's salary isn't that much more than Niedermayer's $2 million.  Two out of Christian Hanson, John Mitchell, Fredrik Sjostrom, and whichever of Versteeg or Kulemin don't make the F line, can be expected to join Armstrong here.  Ideally you would have Sjostrom joining Mitchell or Hanson, leaving Kulemin and Versteeg to play more offensive roles on Lines F and S.

Line S: Again, we have one sure thing for this role (Mikhail Grabovski) and then an abundance of candidates; hopefully three of them can come close to Penner, Getzlaf and Perry.  The Ducks' experience shows Burke is perfectly willing to go with young guys in this role, meaning Nazem Kadri, Jerry D'Amigo, Marcel Mueller and Luca Caputi are all in the mix.  Mueller in particular seems tailor made for the Penner role.   The better comparison here is probably the '05-'06 Ducks, when Penner-Getzlaf-Perry (at ages 22-20-20) made their debuts after starting the year in the AHL.  I expect to see a lot of turnover on this line.

Line T: Colton Orr and Mike Brown are locks here, to be joined by whichever of Hanson, Mitchell and Sjostrom can't cut it on Line C.

If I had to guess, our opening-day roster would look something like this:

F: Nikolai Kulemin - Tyler Bozak - Phil Kessel

C: Colby Armstrong - John Mitchell - Fredrik Sjostrom

S: Marcel Mueller - Mikhail Grabovski - Kris Versteeg

T: Mike Brown - Christian Hanson - Colton Orr

I wouldn't even rule out another minimum salary UFA pick up to fill out Line T and the pressbox; there's no way Kadri, Caputi and D'Amigo should see those roles if they don't make Line S.

In the long-term, we have too many candidates for Line S: Mueller, D'Amigo, Caputi, Grabovski, Kadri and Versteeg.  All of those guys project as scorers and Versteeg is the only one who would seem to be capable of playing a Line C role.  I suspect Burke will use the first half of the year to evaluate, and hopefully he will eventually try to package some of that excess depth at forward and defence for another elite player to join Phaneuf and Kessel.

In any event, if Burke is indeed trying to build a team in the image of the '06-'07 Ducks, I find it unhelpful to focus on Top 6/Bottom 6; those teams had much more distinct roles for their four lines, as I have tried to describe above.  Wilson's line blender will blur things in comparison to the set roles Carlyle used in Anaheim, but I still expect Burke to push the roles I have identified above.

H/Ts to blurr1974 and Death_by_Leafs for a couple corrections that have been made from the original version.

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

Comment 338 comments  |  7 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Pension Plan Puppets

Mats Sundin Memory # 9 - Captain Clutch

Feb 2012 by PPP - 41 comments

Get Ready For The Big House

Feb 2012 by JP Nikota - 558 comments

Halfway to Sochi

Feb 2012 by birky - 147 comments

Do The Leafs 'Give Up' on Grabbo?

Feb 2012 by SkinnyFish - 755 comments

Comments

Display:

I would put Grabovksi, Versteeg, and Kessel on different lines. They’re all puck possession forwards. Putting two of them together doesn’t seem, to me, like the best use of talent. As for the D, I don’t know why Burke signs Lebda as a 7th D when he’ll make more than both Gunnarsson and Schenn. Surely, there is someone from the Marlies who can play spot duty (BB probably thought he’d find a deal for Kaberle, but whatevs).

I think Grabbo has the potential to be a good defensive centerman. Needs to work on his FO% and coverage, but he could be a really solid two-way player. The type of guy you could put into any situation, ala Sami Pahlsson.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 1:23 PM EDT reply actions  

I kept Grabs away from the C role because he had the lowest corsi QoC last year, suggesting RW didn’t trust him against tough competition.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh yeah, Grabbs should not be counted on as a shut-down anything.

Now with 25% fewer operable limbs.

by Sergei Puckizin on Aug 19, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

PS: awesome post. This was a really interesting read!

Now with 25% fewer operable limbs.

by Sergei Puckizin on Aug 19, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks. As mentioned in the first para., building off ideas from a lot of helpful sources.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

When you look at the Rel QOC, though, it just looks like the typical opposition of a second-line centre.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Have I been misreading the stats? I thought REL QoC meant “corsi relative to his QoC”; in other words, it’s a measure of his performance, not his competition. I thought the team-low corsi QoC for Grabovski meant he played the weakest opposition (measured by corsi).

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I read it as his opponents relative to their teammates. Have been looking for the definition again without success.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’ve e-mailed Behind the net for better definitions. Frankly I get so confused as to which stat to use, I need like one line definitions for exactly what is being measured.
I’ll let you guys know when I hear back.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

The definition below makes sense to me. The only explanation I have for the variation in position between his QOC and his REL QOC is that there’s something in the opposition for the games he missed that hits the absolute numbers but not the relative ones – same thing hit Mike Van Ryn.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I took my reading from this comment here:

Awesome job, but I do have one point of correction for you (after some emails back and forth with Gabe at Behind the Net).

Where you say that Leggy and Ward were the two best defensive forwards in the league, you’re linking to the Corsi Rel QoC, which isn’t an "adjusted Corsi rating", but is rather a statement of the quality of their opposition, using "Relative Corsi" (Corsi for a given player MINUS Corsi of his team when he’s on the bench).

In other words, that measure doesn’t say they were the best, just that they faced the toughest opposition. I’ve made the same mistake reading those column headings. Within those tables, there really isn’t an adjusted Corsi presented. By email, he suggested an adjustment formula to me,

Corsi Adjusted = Corsi + 2*Corsi QoC + 0.5*(50-ozone%)

…but I want to chew on that for a bit before running with it.

All the same, defensive contribution and matchups are generally ignored in the usual coverage of hockey, whereas it’s much more obvious in something like football or basketball. I am intrigued by the possibility of an SK-Legwand-Erat line and what that could mean for the Preds.

Doesn’t mean the guy isn’t off his rocker.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think he is, though. It makes for interesting reading on the defensemen, too.

So what happens with the chart is that the Kessel line sees a bunch of checkers who don’t shoot a whole lot, the Grabbo line matches up against the other second line and the checkers face the shooters, which is about what one would expect.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t even remember what I’m going off, something I read ages ago. I’m probably wrong.

So if rel QoC is a measure of quality of competition, what’s corsi QoC?

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

the more exchanges like these i read, the more i’m convinced ‘advanced stats’ will never take off in a meaningful way.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

the ‘dummies’ book has not yet been written, and it is desperately needed.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

i just can’t see it every being simplified enough that the MSM – whether it’s newspaper journalists or TV announcers – could make it part of the standard hockey vernacular.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Probably not.

But I bet it could be cleaned up enough for the interwebs to at least make sense of it.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes. There needs to be a chart:

STAT
WHAT IT MEASURES
HOW IT’S CALCULATED
TYPICAL RANGES

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is what I e-mailed behind the net about.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, their FAQ section isn’t very helpful.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd add

WHY IT’S RELEVANT

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway

by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 19, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think there will ever be an all-encompassing measure of value because there is no effective measure of defensive play. We guess at defensive ability using other numbers as proxies, using reputation and our own eyes.

Where I find a lot of the analysis interesting is when they look at general trends. We’ve always heard about high-percentage shots versus low, and there is some actual analysis out there to back that up.

That said, there is also analysis to try to determine just how much a quality chance is determined by the position of the shooter, how much is his own skill, how much is context (score, PP, defensive postioning, you name it). These are broader hockey questions and I think they’re really cool.

When you apply a broad-based stat to the individual, though, you have to really look at what it’s saying and then look at the specifics of the player to interpret it.

This whole delta thing from the other day is a beautiful case in point. Delta was developed to see whether a player basically outchances his opposition, using the notion of the high percentage scoring area.

The problem is that according to the other research, which was done later, position is only 24% of the overall shot quality. So a shot taken from the high percentage area is in general better, but it is by no means a scoring chance in an of itself. You need to know the other factors.

So what delta becomes is a predictor of offensive behaviour. Grabbo is very very likely, according to delta, to let it rip from the slot. When he is on the ice, the Leafs tend to outshoot their opposition from this area by a wide margin. Kessel, not so much. Phaneuf is slightly outshot.

What does it mean? Not a lot. Phaneuf being outshot is because when he is on the ice, he likes to be the triggerman, and he shoots from the point. It doesn’t mean he’s a weak defender. It means he shoots a ton. Kessel’s line is more likely to let it go from anywhere.

After I clued in to this, I watched some games on LeafsTV. Sure enough, Grabbo’s line would get the puck and beeline for the front of the net. Kessel and Bozak would dipsy-doodle and shoot when they had a look, and Dion would let rip.

How did they defend? No clue.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yup, it’s all little context-sensitive snippets.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Great points

Where this leaves us, unfortunately, is in the position of constantly spinning “just-so” stories about the advanced stats. It requires extreme skepticism except in the case, as here, where you have extensive game footage to constantly check your assumptions on particular players. Even then bias is a huge issue.

As daoust suggests, we need normative data and clear definitions. I think delta and corsi, for example, are really, really useful; I’m just very dubious about the interpretations which have arisen.
Delta has sometimes been used as a measure of “shot quality”. The aforementioned 24% of variance in goal scoring hardly equates to this interpretation.
Corsi has been used to reflect “flow of play”. Similarly problematic.

By no means am I suggesting that those adequately versed in these stats commonly make these mistakes, or come to their conclusions without heavy cross-referencing and caveats.
The issue occurs, rather, when these stats are widely disseminated in their “beta” stages, sometimes as snappy sound-bites. Something to be addressed, a challenge rather than I problem.

by Nirbo on Aug 19, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think they will, just I suspect they’re a ways away from doing it.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

The absolute numbers.

If you’re playing a bunch of teams that don’t shoot a lot, it hurts your overall numbers. But within that team, there is still the top tier of shooters, the second tier, the checkers, etc.

The Rel QoC looks at the opposition with respect to the rest of their team and adjusts accordingly. So if you face the top shooters, no matter how much they actually do shoot, then your stats work as they should.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Note:

“Top shooters” in Corsi means “top by volume” and not necessarily “top by ability.” (I know 67 knows this, but others might not.)

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Appreciated, this makes sense but is not necesserily what I would have assumed you meant.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Corsi tracks shot attempts. There is no indication as to whether the shot ever got near the net. This is one of the beefs with it. All shots are treated as equal when experience tells us they aren’t in reality.

It was developed as a means of tracking how busy a goaltender really was, because whether a shot gets through to him or not, he still has to get set for it.

What concerns me about its use with respect to forwards and defensemen is that their sample sizes are smaller, there is no way of telling whether an opposition shot was in any way related to their play, and there is no indication of quality.

So long as its interpretation is limited to “this player faced the most trigger-happy opposition,” it’s probably fine.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wouldn’t it be more “this player faced the most shot-dominent opposition”, in that it tracks shots for and against, correct?

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes. Yours is better worded, but “trigger happy” is more fun. :)

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you're worried about shots getting near the net

Then you should use shots on goal, rather than corsi.

If you’re worried about shooting location… then use delta.

The main thing that speaks in favour of Corsi is the data sets are larger than +/- and thus less prone to wild variance over the course of a season… for individual players OR goalies.

For skaters it’s purely a measure of puck possession… nobody should be using it as a measure of anything beyond that.

Delta factors in the aspect of shot location, so it’s relevance is to QUALITY of chances generated while the player is on the ice (for or against)… beyond that don’t read into it.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 24, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

But it isn’t quality. Location is only 24% of quality.

This isn’t a measure of scoring chances or anything like that.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 24, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Location

may be 24% of quality… but it’s the largest chunk we can actually identify clearly… which makes it the most important/relevant thing in the conversation we can actually discuss that players have control over.

It’s a measure of shot location and frequency wrt time. If you get more shots from good spots than the opposition you should come out on top.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 26, 2010 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

Woops

I was referring to delta? It’s early for me.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 26, 2010 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

But at the same time, it’s just 24%. All location-based factors combined bring it to just 27%. 19% is simply the innate ability of the shooter and the remaining 54% relates to undocumented/uncaptured factors that he bundles with shooting ability.

So what makes a quality chance is basically what you’d expect simply from a thought experiment: where the shot was taken from, who the player is that is taking it, and the circumstances under which it is being taken (and it’s this third area that seems to have the largest impact).

As they say on the site, when in doubt, it’s probably a good idea to head for the front of the net, but that doesn’t guarantee a scoring opportunity in and of itself.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 26, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well except keep in mind that you “everything else” will include “blind luck”… which is likely to be a huge component, if not the single biggest.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Aug 30, 2010 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

It actually isn’t a measure of puck possession either.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 24, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s territory, right?

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the winger that has now terrorized over 70 NHL goalies.

by red army line on Aug 25, 2010 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Just shot attempts. The further you get from shot attempts, the shakier the ground becomes. People try to use it as a proxy for a whole bunch of other things, but there’s no real evidence to back it, just a lot of supposition.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 26, 2010 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well no

it is a correlate to possession / territory.

Theoretically you could have the puck LESS than the other team and fire more shots… if they never shoot the puck…

but in Hockey shooting occurs so often that number of shots does correspond relatively well to total puck possession.

As for territory, there is no guarantee you’re shooting from inside the blue line… you could fire a zillion shots from your own end, so that kind of ruins the territorial argument.

Either way… it’s a proxy… we don’t have clear numbers on either of the above.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 26, 2010 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think that so long as people realize that a lot of these numbers are used as proxies, then we’re fine.

The stats have a certain literal meaning, the rest is inference and what we wind up debating is the quality of the inference.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 26, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

You CAN shoot from your own blueline, though most don’t very often.

Certain Finnish goaltenders would have done well to have availed themself of this info.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Aug 30, 2010 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Let’s say you played 8 games, all against Buffalo (who I will assume doesn’t shoot much, though they probably shoot eleventy-bazillion times per game and this is a complete lie. Humour me, OK?). Your Corsi QOC probably stinks. If, though, you faced the top shooters within the Sabres, the fact that they didn’t shoot that much doesn’t really hurt you in REL QoC.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

I understand that part, the part I’m trying to figure out is why your ranks within a team would move so much between the two. Why would Grabs be middle of the pack among Leafs on one but at the bottom of the other? Is it just the time he missed to injury?

In other words, if your entire team played the same 82 games, would your ranking within your team in Corsi QoC and Corsi Rel QoC be the same?

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would think so.

To me, the ones with wild disparities are the ones missing significant time. We’d need to look at the missing games to see what happened to throw the numbers.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good, thanks. Very helpful.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Note – that’s my interpretation of the data….

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Corsi QoC is QualComp but measured in Corsis, not relative plus minus. Rel QoC is that corsi, relative to teammates (basically, relative plus minus, but for Corsi QoC). I think that’s it.

If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want craziness, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want humor, go to Battle of California.If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog (now featuring two Penguins fans as co-authors) and Twitter.

by red army line on Aug 21, 2010 6:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Corsi QoC

is the AVERAGE corsi rating of the opposition the player faces when they are on the ice.

Rel Corsi QoC is the average of the corsi rating of the opposition players faced MINUS the corsi ratings of the team when those players are on the bench.

The Relative part just takes out the team average… so you’re basically looking at a number that subtracts out the team effects on a player’s individual corsi.

Both of them are measures of competition, just one takes out the team effects. In the end it shouldn’t matter on the whole aside for the fact that players in tougher divisions will have higher corsi QoC than players in weaker divisions. Rel Corsi QoC should remove that impact.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

woops misread a bit of that

ok the Rel subtracts the INDIVIDUAL player’s team effects. So yeah… it’s subtracting out THEIR team effect.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

i.e.

the difference between Grabbo’s Corsi QoC being -0.873 and his Corsi Rel QoC being 0.138 is that when you factor out the team effects, he is the guy facing the 9th most difficult opposition amongst the Leafs forwards last season… that’s what his Rel Corsi QoC is telling us.

his Corsi QoC is more of an absolute value. the Corsi REL is the value with respect to his team-mates… factoring out the impact of the team when he’s NOT on the ice. Here’s an example of how you’d calculate each:

Corsi QoC is just the cumulative average of all the Corsi numbers of the players the player plays in opposition to… the average based on TOI.

Corsi REL is determined by subtracing the team’s Corsi Number while they are OFF the ice from the team’s Corsi Number while the player is ON the ice. The Corsi Rel QoC is then calculated by using the same average calculation used for Corsi QoC… just using the Corsi Rel numbers.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

ah
I thought REL QoC meant "corsi relative to his QoC"

I think it’s Corsi “Rel QoC” – that is, Corsi as per his relative QoC. REL and QoC go together.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

no

it’s Corsi and Rel that go together… the QoC is just the averaging of the competition values.

Corsi and Corsi Rel are two specific values for each player. The QoC tabulation is just a moving average of those values for the opposition based on ice time.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Link please.

The stuff I found is that it’s Corsi tracking against relative QoC.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 24, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK – rereading. I thought they were modifying the opposition numbers rather than the source player. Either way, the net result is the same. You get a reading of what the player did relative to his teammates in the games that he actually managed to play.

Of Leaf centres, Grabbo saw the opposition least likely to dominate in shots other than Tyler Bozak. It’s basically what you’d expect of your second-line centre. He’s not facing the checkers, but he’s not up against the scoring line either.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 24, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Great work here, very interesting.
I do find the difference in the defense intriguing. Maybe the difference is that Burke didn’t expect the Ducks to do as well as they did that year?
The forwards are the most interesting part. Interesting choice putting Mueller there, I think we’ll see Caputi in his spot, but there’s a lot of interesting analysis here.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:28 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah, it’s pure guesswork as to who gets the nod out of Mueller, Caputi, Kadri and even D’Amigo. I picked Mueller basically because he’s the biggest and oldest of the group.

I suspect the D backlog is because (1) he didn’t expect to get Phaneuf when he signed Komi/Beauch; (2) he expected to be able to trade Kaberle; and (3) he was stuck with Finger.

If he actually intends to follow the Ducks’ model—which is top-heavy, just as I have always thought was necessary—I’d expect to see more depth shuffled out the door this year.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah

that’s the conclusion I’ve come to as well.
It seems to me that, because he’s been unable to add top end forwards, he’s been adding better D so that when there’s one of these forwards available, at least he is unnecesserily strong at D where he can feel free to draw from for a trade. I think the age on our defense indicates that they won’t be sticking around. So… maybe those rumours of him trying to sign Hamhuis/Martin on July 1 were correct?

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I could definitely see Beauchemin dealt if any two of Komi, Gunnar or Schenn step up. Beauchemin strikes me as extremely marketable.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

yup

I expect that just when I’m finally warming up to him (I really hated him to start the year last year, right now I think he’s not so bad) he’ll be shipped out.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

yep. even if it’s just to free up cap space next year, if beauchemin has an OK season, he’ll be marketable. there are plenty of teams who would pay $3.8M to a D to eat up big minutes (and tough ones, as you and chemmy have pointed out).

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I feel completely the opposite. I could see Komisarek or Schenn traded, but not Beauchemin.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

remember, Schenn, Komi, and Phaneuf all play the right side.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Beauchemin: lower salary, no NTC, better results (so far) = higher return.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

sooner expiring contract

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Burke couldn’t get anything for Kaberle, why could he get something for Beauch?

I think his (beauch) value is far higher to the Leafs than on the trade market.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not to mention that you’re then looking at Kaberle or Gunnarsson playing with Phaneuf.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

I just think Gunnar or Schenn could mature into that role.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Schenn is a right D.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Schenn was what the NYI wanted for 1st overall.

the Leafs drafted Kadri at 7th instead.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

My point is that the Leafs are stronger at RD (Dion, Komi, Schenn) than they are at LD.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

And IF they move a D, it should be from that side of the blueline

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Our point is that other teams don’t care what the Leafs’ D looks like, they only want to take our good players.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Pretty sure Kaberle and Schenn are the only 2 players other teams would want from our D.

They should want Gunnar, but most of them don’t know enough about him.

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

why wouldnt they want beauch?

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

i’m fairly certain every team knows more than enough about Gunnarsson to make an informed decision…

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Mostly

they should just know he had decent numbers, moved up his TOI above other vets, and only costs 800k next year.

All good reasons not to trade him…

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

what i mean is they have scouting depratments and pay guys to know more than what’s available on message boards…

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unless we’re talking mid-80s Leaf scouting, who were only allowed to travel as far as they could without needing to buy gas.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

We care what our D looks like. We shouldn’t be advocating moving Beauchemin from among the defensemen we have.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

depending on the return

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

would kill our D. kill it.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

i disagree
weaken it, sure,
kill it? nay-bob

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can understand why trading Schenn might seem like a reasonable idea – he’ll likely net the Leafs a great return.
It’s just trading “potential”, for “now” just to get into the playoffs, doesn’t seem timely.
Also, trading “potential” for “now” has not worked well for the Leafs in the past and scares me.

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

it is different if that “now” is someone like Kessel, who also falls into the future/ potential category
thus Schenn only moves for a young 35+ goal scorer type like Ryan, Parise, etc etc etc

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

mmmmm

parise

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

agreed. Now and future return = necessary evil

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

it'd be a short list

but I’d trade Schenn (one for one, or one + minor prospect deal…) for one of:

  • Neal
  • Ryan
  • Parise
  • Stamkos (doubt that’d be enough though…)

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

switch Neal for Benn or Eriksson from dallas

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

switch?

nay

add Benn or Eriksson as equally acceptable alternates? sure

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, that works too

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I doubt we get Stamkos Or Parise for Schenn…….Neal i think we might…..for Ryan, we’d have to add that minor prospect/pick

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

well yes, but this isnt really a commentary on Could, more of Would
as it would take a player like this to pry schenn out of Burkes mitts

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

RICK NASH!!!1

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

/sigh

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

The “would take” list would include a much longer list of players than just those 4. Those are suggestions that could reasonably happen.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

stamkos reasonable?

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

As Blurr said, he is unlikely, but the rest could be exchanged for Schenn+. Players I would take for Schenn would include Ovechkin, Crosby, Nash, Doughty………you get the point.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

all which could be had for Schenn +, depending on what the plus is

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

+ being the minor prospect deal that Blurr had stated.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

it would take more than Schenn + a minor prospect to get stamkos
it would probably take Schenn+Kadri+ the leafs 2012 first

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

DONE

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hold the fuck up.

You’d effectively be trading 5 straight 1st rounders, 2 2nds and a 3rd for Kessel and Stamkos and that’s it.

If that’s the route you wanna go, keep Schenn, keep Kadri and just offer sheet Stamkos

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again, Blurr said that it would indeed take much more to pry Stamkos. The rest of the list is more reasonable………..Stamkos falls in the wishful thinking category.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE

This is nuts to even hypothetically discuss

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

shhhhhhhhh

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

so is your face

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, but it’s August and the Jays are having an off-day.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

lol…..trade Schenn or pry Stamkos……I’ll agree with you on the latter

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not sure there’s any combination of players and picks the Leafs could offer to get Ovechkin, Crosby, Doughty… but I get your point.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Schenn-plus, but yes.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gunnarsson could be gone. Same with Mikus. Both are fairly desirable.

Doesn’t necessarily have to be an NHLer…

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Burke could’ve gotten something for Kaberle, but not what he wanted.
Beachemin has a lower cap hit and is much, much better defensively.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

A contender would absolutely take Beauchemin for a Cup run

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes but

Unless the case is their D is weak due to injuries, not a ton of contenders can take on 3.8M in cap space for 2 more years.

Not impossible if we took say, a moderately bad salary back + draft pick…

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I am thinking a deadline deal, if that clarifies anything.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

One of our top pairing defenders for a bad salary back and a bottom 5 1st round pick?

I’d rather keep Beauchemin

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ok fine, no bad salary, just the pick you just described, yay or nay?

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

depending on the state of the Leafs D
if everyone is playing well, and progressing and developing nicely and the leafs can afford to move him, sure
if it is an abomination of a wreck of injuries and inconsistencies again, then nay

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

No way. Beauchemin was the only D last year to play consistently tough minutes against the opposition’s best players. He seemed to have good chemistry with Phaneuf in the spring. He fills a need for this team at left defense. There is no one ready to step up and fill that spot should he be injured or traded. I’d honestly rather trade Schenn for a better package (not that I want to trade Schenn, but if it came down to one or the other, I’d pick Schenn)

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

So at the deadline, if a team offered a weak first round pick, you wouldn’t trade a 30 year old defenceman with a year left on a $3 million contract, but would trade a 21 year old up coming defenceman who is only going to get better?

Cool beans

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wouldn’t trade either one for a weak first round pick. But that’s how valuable I see Beauchemin as being to this team

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Let’s hope someone else can grow into that role. Because I agree he is currently extremely important. I just hope he won’t be by next year.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Haven’t we said you need to maximize your assets and if Beauchemin could net that (I HIGHLY doubt he would) I would make that trade in a heartbeat. That’s just me tho.
Dont take this as Beauchemin knocking, I like the guy, but in this hypothetical situation… SEE YA!

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

if Schenn develops as expected (and lets be honest, he’s coming along rather nicely) why couldn’t he fill Beauchemin’s role?

at some point, you have to gamble. you can’t argue against trading picks in one scenario, and then advocate trading blue chip prospects over aging vets.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

First, because Schenn and Beauchemin play different sides. People seem to think that defensemen can play both sides at will. That’s simply not the case. A lot of players are comfortable on one side vs. the other. That’s why you see a lot of guys who shoot left play on the left, and righties on the right. That’s not to say some guys don’t play the off-wing (so to speak, like Phaneuf), but there aren’t many D who can play both sides interchangeably. Trading Beauchemin leaves Kaberle and Gunnarsson as our top two left D. I’m not entirely convinced that would be a great idea.

Second, the minute Brian Burke traded for Dion Phaneuf, it made me think Burke wasn’t entirely sold on Schenn. If Burke was so sure that Schenn was going to be a stud, I don’t think he makes that deal. Schenn is never going to pass Phaneuf as the Leaf’s top right defenseman. And, even though his contract is bad, Komisarek should be an excellent second pairing right D for the next 4 years. Schenn should have a good career. Is he Adam Foote? I don’t think so. I think you can move Schenn as the centerpiece of a package to get an elite scorer. Outside of Phaneuf, there isn’t another person on the D in which that is true.

Trading Beauchemin, in my opinion, hurts this team. I don’t think trading Schenn (depending on the return) does.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

When do you think the Leafs will actually be competative? For instance, this year, we’ll be scraping to make the playoffs. When do you think they’ll be a contender?

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

It depends. The defense and goaltending are close, if not already in place. But the Leafs are missing at least one elite scoring forward and, until Kulemin breaks out, a second line left wing. Maybe even a 3rd line LW if none of Caputi, Mueller, or D’Amigo pan out this season. I think we’re OK at center if Kadri develops into a #1. Bozak should be an excellent #2 center.

I think our window probably starts in the 2011-2012 season.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

what do you think?

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think we’re 2 years away from being competative at all. Not only do we need a scoring forward, our young players need a lot more experience.
I think our current defense is a stop-gap so that the young forwards can make a lot of mistakes and hopefully not get burned by them. Phaneuf, Schenn, Komi are the only three defensemen we currently have that I think will be around when we’re competative (maybe Gunnar too) and the rest will be filled in with youth (Aulie, Mikus etc.).

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I see this year’s team being a bubble team, either making it or not. If they do make it, probable first round fodder but invaluable experience.
Next year, challenge for a bottom half playoff spot and year after become legit contenders with a good, young core that has some experience.

Now with 25% fewer operable limbs.

by Sergei Puckizin on Aug 19, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think the NHL, in general, is dominated by young players right now. Kids seem to come into the league more prepared than ever. I agree the young guys need experience, but if you get enough talent together, you can overcome that.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Enough high end young talent, sure.
But the Leafs don’t have much of that, and trading Schenn isn’t going to improve that situation.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

depends on what we get back

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Giving up a 20 year old defenseman for anything less than a franchise forward (which I think we can all admit isn’t going to happen) seems illogical.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

a young 20ish year old franchise forward.

I don’t want Schenn for Joe Thornton.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

There’s no substitute for experience: the past 2 Stanley Cup winners were young for sure, but they had a lot of experience around to mentor the guys.
In Pittsburgh, most of the young corps had played with and learned from Roberts and Recchi, plus they had Gonchar and (dare I say it) Hal Gill, and Mario was always popping by. They’re kinda different, because when they got to the Finals the first time, they had all the experience they needed to win it all the next year.
Chicago had Hossa, John Madden, and Christobal Huet. Not a lot of guys, but certainly enough to give them experience

"Hockey captures the essence of Canadian experience... hockey is the chance of life, and an affirmation that despite the deathly chill of winter we are alive." - Stephen Leacock.

by Leafer87 on Aug 19, 2010 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

FYI – Gunnarsson spent more time on RD with Beauchemin than he did on LD with Schenn.

Schenn could be cheaper than Komisarek for longer than the next four years since he’s still on his entry contract and he’ll be an RFA when it’s time to renegotiate, which means Burke can still control his cap hit.

Phaneuf was also brought in because as a leader, Komisarek must not have been making the grade to wear the C, even though it was reported thoroughly that he was signed for his leadership qualities. It should be noted that Burke and Sutter were talking about Phaneuf while Komisarek was still playing for the Leafs in mid-Nov of this past season. Burke didn’t make the trade just because Komi was injured.

All that said, I completely agree that Schenn would net more in return than Beauchemin, which, to me, seems to highlight his value and importance to not just now, but the longterm future of the Leafs. That said, I don’t see just Schenn being enough to land the type of player you’re talking about. Beauchemin wouldn’t fetch much either in that respect, and definitely far less. I’d still prefer hanging on to a guy like Schenn (and Gunnarsson, although of the two, I’d trade Gunnar first…) and trading Kabby and Beauch and Komi for those pieces.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess I just don’t think we’d fair value in a trade for Beauchemin for how much he means to this team. Beyond trading for a top lottery pick, I don’t see how we are going to acquire elite talent without moving someone like Schenn

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

elite talent, by it’s very definition is rare and practically impossible to obtain.

Trading away a top 5 pick in an insanely deep draft in Luke Schenn for a win-now scenario only hurts the Leafs 4-5 years down the road when Schenn is a 25 year old tank on skates and Beauchemin and Komi are breaking down fast thanks to their age.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like I said, it depends on the return for Schenn.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m just not sold on your theory that Beauchemin is the glue this team needs to compete. If Komi wasn’t hurt, he’d have cannibalized a lot of those minutes Beauchemin saw. he’s far from irreplaceable in that respect.

Schenn and Gunnarsson’s knocks are experience. I think Wilson’s done a decent job of protecting them from those tough minutes, and the inclusion of Beauchemin is because of that. Chances are, we could see Schenn and Gunnarsson get even longer looks in the PK and 3rd period of games this year.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

fair enough

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

You DO NOT trade someone like Schenn. It can only come back to bite you in the ass. He’s only 20 years old and killing people. Imagine what he’ll do when he’s 25. He’s going to become comparable to either Regehr or Ryan Suter depending on how his offensive game develops.

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you’re left with Komisarek then

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why would any NHL GM want him at this point?
Not to mention his limited NTC

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

After this year, the top 4 is Komi, Phaneuf, Schenn, and Beauchemin. Why do we have to move someone?

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

We don’t.
We’re just spitballing about trading from a position of strength to shore up a position of weakness.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

One could argue that while D is a position of strength, LD is not.

verbeauty!

by A Lindros Jaw on Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

LD rocks

and I think you owe her an apology

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

And bottom 2 are

Lebda and Finger based on salary. Poor D-men kids have no chance unless one of those can move.

All of this assuming Kaberle is no longer with the Leafs next year.

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m just defending Beauchemin. Played the toughest minutes on D last year, and is far and away our best LD.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

We like Beauchemin.
That’s why I think other teams want him.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly. My suggestion he could be part of a deal is because I think he’s very good and not at all overpaid.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Phaneuf/Beauchemin pairing was pretty good last spring. I’d rather not break that up, especially since it’s doubtful that Beauchemin could net a top6 when Kaberle couldn’t. Plus, I’d rather not see Kaberle or Gunnarsson playing on the top pairing with Phaneuf

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

But the point of the discussion is what other teams may want off our roster, not what’s good for the Leafs’ defense.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

I could definitely see Beauchemin dealt

I can’t.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why do I bother?
Moving on.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

that’s what you get for bothering. ;)

Now with 25% fewer operable limbs.

by Sergei Puckizin on Aug 19, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Washington’s first place at the deadline and continuing to “play defence” by outscoring everybody, Beauchemin would be perfect for them.

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I suspect the D backlog is because (1) he didn’t expect to get Phaneuf when he signed Komi/Beauch; (2) he expected to be able to trade Kaberle; and (3) he was stuck with Finger.

agreed. i also think burke may be ok with keeping more D depth than he did in Anaheim because he still believes in building from the net out, but knows that he doesn’t have 2 candidates who can quite fill the role of Nieds-Pronger.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

One thing to consider

The CBA (I don’t have the clause handy ATM) says that you can demote a player to the minors, but you have to ice the most competitive team.

Maybe the Lebda signing was an attempt to move Finger (in the eyes of the league) to 7th on the depth chart and therefore demote-able.

Not trading Kaberle left them with 8, so it should be even easier to justify to the league why the Leafs are burying Finger(BCWW) in the minors.

Just a thought, not sure if this is the reason for Lebda.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yea, if Kabs had been traded like Burke likely hoped, this might be the case

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sneaky. I like this.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

To be honest, I can’t figure out any other reason for signing Lebda, unless it was to justify sending Finger down and saving 2 million.

This was the best I could come up with – might be something a management team might do to get around the rules.

Not trading Kaberle kind of made the whole thing moot anyway.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 19, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

wow

suddenly, Lebda is a genius signing

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Burke is savy

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Back to the threads!

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

if this really is the case, it’s genius. and also a testament to the freedom of wallet MLSE is giving Burke: go ahead and spend $4.8M (lebda + finger) to free up cap space to spend another $3.5M.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I like this too, so coniving

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seems like a smart way to spread out the lines…too bad Ron Wilson is braindead.

by raskofalltrades on Aug 19, 2010 1:40 PM EDT reply actions  

The Ron Wilson Blender Method of Coaching!

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

pssst… I’m pretty sure 90% of NHL coaches use the Blender Method nowadays.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

ssshhhhhh

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, as long as he’s searching for match-ups as set out above I’m fine with the blender. I think the Pat Quinn “roll four lines” approach is dead in a cap world. You just can’t afford to pay anything to your 4th line so it usually sucks.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I learned this morning that the Pat Quinn/Tom Renney team was fired by the Canucks back in the 1990s.
I wonder why the Oilers thought they would work now.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

1st overall pick: Taylor Hall

I think it worked perfectly

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

The 1990s Canucks has NHL calibre goaltending and defence.

The 2009-10 Oilers had neither of those

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s top 9/bottom 5 if you’re looking at it from striclty a TOI perspective.

As far as roles on the team, it’s still the same.
2 scoring lines
2 checking lines

The first checking line, tends to get more ice time than the 2nd scoring line, as they are counted on to play against the other teams top line most frequently.

“Top” for scoring and “Bottom” for checking. Poor word choices.

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 1:49 PM EDT reply actions  

Sure but the 2nd scoring line and the 1st checking lines often don’t have big differences in ice time, and sometimes the 1st checking line sees more icetime than the 2nd scoring line, so saying “top 6, bottom 6” seems extremely inaccurate.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Scoring #1, checking #1, scoring #2, checking #2?

by Nirbo on Aug 19, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

That seems to correspond to the F C S T, yes.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or perhaps

Scoring #1, checking #1, scoring #2, checking #4?

(cos the 4th line get tiny minutes)

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Aug 19, 2010 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right, and the “2 checking lines” have very little in common (other than not being counted on to score). The C line plays significant, tough minutes. It’s an important role. The T line plays 6 minutes per night and, depending on your perspective, puts on a sideshow/deters violence against your good players.

Let’s be charitable to Burke and say I misunderstood what he meant by Top 6/Bottom 6. I thought the Top 6 was the scoring 6 and got more ice time than the bottom 6. That simply isn’t true.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yup

That seems to be the accepted definition of Top6/Bottom6, but the post from Copper n Blue on the subject seems to have shown that dividing playesr that way really doesn’t exist.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

“I thought the Top 6 was the scoring 6 and got more ice time than the bottom 6. That simply isn’t true.”
For certain, and whole-heartedly agree

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you did misinterpret Burke. He has never mentioned anything about TOI when talking top 6 / bottom 6 (or at least not that I’ve seen). I’ve always interpreted it in terms of offensive contribution, and he’s suggested as much when he refers to the style of play of the ‘bottom’ six vs the ‘top’ (scoring vs grinding, simply put). The fact that ½ of his ‘bottom 6’ may actually have more TOI than ½ of his ‘top 6’ doesn’t necessarily mean the structure doesn’t exist.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, there’s no doubt. I just think it’s misleading to even talk about top/bottom 6 and more helpful to think in terms of specific roles. At least for that Ducks team it is. Last year the Leafs were not well-defined at all in terms of their roles, hopefully this year will be better.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

agreed. top 6/bottom 6 is an oversimplification, almost sounding like it was designed for easy consumption by the MSM who can’t be bothered with understanding the intricacies of building a team anyway.

good post too, btw. my piece in the MLA touches on this topic a bit, with one section looking at how cup winners were built from a ‘how players were acquired’ perspective. There’s an uncanny resemblance between the Ducks cup-winning team and the Leafs…. more players acquired via trades and free agency than the draft, and an unusually high number of players that were undrafted free agents.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Andy McDonald = Tyler Bozak, right? Right???

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

EXACTLY

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also – kadri and kulemin will be the two non-top 5 draft picks that have average regular seasons but then explode in the playoffs to lead their team to victory a la Getzlaf and Perry.

Kessel will play the role of ‘scoring vet acquired via Trade’ Teemu Selanne.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Except Selanne was a UFA signing.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

he was traded to anaheim once, but not in 2005.

so i gues burke has to find an aging scoring vet to sign?

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Enter Stage Left: Paul Kariya

The ironing would be delicious

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good heavens no.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

I still think he has 1 or 2 more seasons left in him.

I just don’t think Andy Murray was/Ron Wilson is the coach to let him hit his peak.

Could he do well in Anaheim in a 2nd line role? How about the Islanders? Or Colorado?

I don’t know what St Louis’ read on him is, considering they have Backes/Perron/Oshie/McDonald/Berglund/Boyes/Steen all competing for scorer’s minutes… but he did perform well once Payne was the coach

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think he’s done.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

not sure what clean pressed laundry would have to do with anything…

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Pronger = Phaneuf, i.e. star D who unexpectedly falls into your lap.

Now if we could just find a Scott Niedermayer…

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Kaberle!!!!!1

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rule 15: Tomas Kaberle!!!

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

A combination of Komisarek and Kaberle?

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

was just about to write that myself!

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

kabersarek

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gumbercules? I love that guy!

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway

by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 19, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

This feels like an episode of Lost...

where Burke is trying to recreate the circumstances of his cup win as closely as possible….

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

key question we’re overlooking: who’s going to play beauchemin?

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

has to be either schenn or gunnarsson

by ShahofToronto on Aug 19, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

LEBDA!

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lebda's purpose

is to be the whipping boy for the entire team. Trust me, we will grow to love to hate him.

It is a vital but underrated role that is crucial in helping the youngsters develop, by taking the pressure off their mistakes, and putting the focus on the Lebda’s idiocies.

Or he’s just a bad signing.

The most pessimistic Leafs fan on the board.

by Peter de Chatham on Aug 19, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

but what about Finger? What’s his role then???

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

on the Marlies?

I don’t know, don’t follow them….

The most pessimistic Leafs fan on the board.

by Peter de Chatham on Aug 19, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hope so, couple of collegiate stand-outs, not very big, but very slick playmakers. Just stay health young BOZAK

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Keep this up long enough

and we’ll be finding ways for Ron Wilson to start dating Kessel’s mother.

by Nirbo on Aug 19, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

My article in MLA touches on this as well.

I think that ice time is still an important factor when considering Burke’s “top-six” philosophy, though. To say that there should is a big dropoff between the 2nd and 3rd line’s ice time is bunk (and I just put up a fanpost to this effect), but the Checking line 1 players should be interchangeable with Scoring line 2 players. I think that’s why Colby Armstrong fits Burke’s mold so well at this point.

"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"

by JP Nikota on Aug 19, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think I may even go back and clarify this a bit in my fanpost.

"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"

by JP Nikota on Aug 19, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s what I’m saying – The words “top” and “bottom” are poor word choices for “scoring” and “checking”. Especially if you’re assessing the lines in terms of ice-time. As far as role on the team: 2 scoring lines and 2 checking lines.
As far as importance? That 1st checking line is just as, if not more important, than the 2nd scoring line.
The 2nd checking line isn’t good for much else than intimidation.

The actual “top 6”, as far as TOI and importance, could be considered – the 1st scoring line and the 1st checking line.

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 1:56 PM EDT reply actions  

does this make Colton Orr a power bottom?

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

The corner of Church and Maitland just collectively fainted.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

if the handle bar mustache fits

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

bravo

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, kudos. Good read

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Aug 19, 2010 2:07 PM EDT reply actions  

"Steady vet" Francois Beauchemin

He was definitely not a vet, and was entirely a throw-in piece in the Fedorov trade.

Francois Beauchemin had played 12 NHL games before Burke acquired him: 1 in Montreal (02-03) and 11 in Columbus (05-06)

He played another 61 that season (05-06, age 25), for a total of 73 career NHL games heading into training camp in 06-07.

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:11 PM EDT reply actions  

He wasn’t a throw-in in the Fedorov trade. Burke specifically said at the time that he wanted Beauchemin in the deal. Had seen him play and liked him.

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I was under the impression that when Beachemin arrived from CBJ, he was initially going to be sent to the minors but he told Burke if he gave him a chance, he’d make it worth his while?

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I get the impression that there are no such things as “throw-in” players in a Burke deal. We all thought that about Sjorstrom and I don’t think you’ll find anybody who wasn’t floored by what he contributes. A hardhat role, to be sure, but a well-thought out acquisition.

by The Muppet on Aug 19, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

That Peluso kid would whole-heartedly disagree here.

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yup

Here’s the link.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Burke specifically said at the time that he wanted Beauchemin in the deal. Had seen him play and liked him.

Pretty sure Burke has been quoted saying he relied on his NHL scouts to have Beachemin included in the deal. He didn’t know anything about him at the time. Can anyone else confirm this?

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes

From the link I just posted above:

“We would be lying if we said anticipated he would be this good,” Burke said. “And this was all (Anaheim director of hockey operations) Bob Murray. He’s the guy who said, ‘He needs to be in the deal.’ He liked him.”

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like Nonis (?) with Aulie?

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Did Nonis insist on Aulie?
I remember Fletcher insisting on Sjostrom.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

I only remember that Sutter wanted Mayers (why I dont know), and Sjostrom was there to balance it out. Not sure who advised to get Sjostrom.

Aulie was a name they wanted though, although they could have picked from like 3 or 4 good D-prospects the flames have.

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fletch wanted Sjostrings

He drafted him first rounder in Phx, he knew he was big & fast & good on PK/defensive responsibilities as well as being a deceiving forechecker.

Sutter wanted Mayers because he’s insane. If it was 4-for-1 (crap for Phanuef), then we’d still have won.

+ Sjostrom is money
+ Aulie is money with gravy.

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah that’s my recollection too. Throughout the 06-07 season I remember the talking heads continually refer to Beauchemin as a happy accident coming out of the Fedorov cash dump.

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

The talking heads are wrong as often as not.
On the behest of Murray, as quoted above, Beachemin was specifically asked for. He worked out better than expected, but he wasn’t a “throw-in”.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I mean throw-in as more of Fedorov-for-Wright, and Anaheim gets their pick of one of the prizes from the bottom shelf.

Bob Murray sure knew the guy to take, but by “throw-in” I mean that he wasn’t the focus of the deal for either team.

Columbus wanted a decent scoring vet to play with Nash & Zherdev (ending with 43 pts in 62 gms), and Anaheim wanted to get rid of the guy because McDonald was obviously emerging as a better #1 choice and they needed cap relief.

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

good read

FYI – minor quip; the AHL journeyman was named Joe DiPenta, not “Rob”. He made $700k in 07-08. I could tell you where I found that, but then I’d have to kill you…

nah, just kidding. here you go

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 2:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Ack, I knew it was Joe—don’t know why I said Rob. And thanks for the salary reminder. I actually looked it up for Nidermayer so I have a source now too. I’ll edit to fix these.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

A little off topic, but I’m wondering if Burke is satisfied with the way the Kabby (lack of) trade went down. If he thought he needed a top 6 forward in July, he must still think he needs one right now?

I’m a loser for reading Eklund, but when I see him write that Burke is still working on a big deal I can’t help but get sucked in. It actually does make a lot of sense.

by The Muppet on Aug 19, 2010 2:20 PM EDT reply actions  

Burke’s always working.
I don’t know that he’s that disappointed about Kaberle, although I am sure he thinks another top 6 (or scoring) forward is needed. Hopefully to play on that F line.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

could still be noodling around the Savard deal.. but if (as Bill Daly said) the Savard deal is one of four that has been under investigation for over a year, maybe Burke would rather keep that deal at arms length.

Who knows? Maybe his “big deal” will be to send Finger to a team that needs to make the cap floor?

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wouldn’t be surprised if Burke’s working on a big deal—on the FAN he said he was going to be “circling back” with teams on other issues that had arisen during Kaberle discussions—but I doubt they’ll involve Kaberle.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

i assume those deals will flicker about more into the season, as teams start to drift down or up.

To the good teams that want to get better: “Well, if you want that division banner, its going to cost you…”

To the bad teams that want to salvage the season: “Oomph, this guy’s been a real slug. We’ll take him off your hands for Brayden Irwin…”

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Goaltending helps

This was a good read, nicely done. I think it is also important to note what Giguere did in the playoffs—.922 SV% and 1.97 GAA.

by billbarilkodisappeared on Aug 19, 2010 2:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Indeed, there are two key factors in the Ducks Cup run and always involve some element of luck: all-world goaltending and health. You can pick a better than average goalie, you can pick durable guys, you can protect them with goons, but ultimately you need luck too.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is why I’m OK with a team strategy which attempts consistent playoff competitiveness over trying to find some hypothetical “peak”. The peaks and lows come from more than drafting, and will often be hyper-analyzed after the fact to reflect some sort of genius timing on the part of the managers involved.

by Nirbo on Aug 19, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

so we wanna be like Montreal

but less puny and annoying?

The most pessimistic Leafs fan on the board.

by Peter de Chatham on Aug 19, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

or, you know, the Leafs of 6 years ago

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

ay

but without the Owen Nolan trades.

by Nirbo on Aug 19, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just throwing it out there…

2003 – JS Giguere wins Conn Smythe as the goalie for the losing team in the Finals
2007 – JS Giguere backstops the Ducks to the Cup
2011 – ?

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cycles and patterns FTW!!!1

Now with 25% fewer operable limbs.

by Sergei Puckizin on Aug 19, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

duh
profit

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hrm

I know nobody here is really high on Irwin, but Burke said when he was signed that he was going to be a top 6 forward this coming season, so I’d add him to the list of possible players to put in that spot that Mueller occupies.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:57 PM EDT reply actions  

maybe they are gonna transplant some legs that can actually skate on to him

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would be interested in hearing what he’s been working on this summer.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

An extension to Burke’s house, maybe.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

SKATING

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

one would hope…..

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

i don’t think i’ve ever seen Irwin play. where is all this ‘he can’t skate’ stuff coming from?

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

The games he played for the Leafs at the end of the season.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

both of them

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not sure how many games you need to watch to judge a player’s skating.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

survey says

two

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I know it’s a small sample size but he made Jason Allison look like Phil Kessel.

Actually, it wasn’t just the speed; it was that he looked incredibly choppy and ungainly. He was an ankle-burner compared to most NHL guys.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Heh

funny thing was he was so close to scoring a goal on Ryan Miller, if it wasn’t for that Buffalo Vezina-candidate poking the puck away at the last second.

If he had buried it we would be talking about how we have a solid prospect.

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rickard Wallin scored on brodeur
no one here talked about how we had a solid player in him

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wallin > Irwin

When I read the nickname Testicula, the first thing that popped into my head was a vampiristic scrotum that can only be killed with a silver cross driven through the vas deferens.

by SkinnyFish on Aug 19, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ya but

1 goal in 2 games played, on Ryan Miller… we’d be less upset than the so-called “SPC-waster” Brayden Irwin.

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

we would still rip the shit out of his skating until proven otherwise

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

I could see myself jumping on the “he could be that guy who stands in front of the net and buries rebounds role” argument.

Alas, he didn’t.

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wait

I thought it was Orr who scored on Brodeur? Or was it both?

There's always money in the banana stand.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Aug 19, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

both, same game

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

lol brodeur

Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 19, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Brodeur

has a blooper reel longer than Raycroft and Toskala and any three other useless goalies you’d care to name combined.
A thousand-plus games in every pressure situation will include that though, it’s the Connie Mack effect (it’s August, don’t hit me for talking baseball).

by Nirbo on Aug 19, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think a few more. He’s gangly, so he’ll look awful no matter what.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, maybe he’ll grow into his body something.

The straws, I am reaching for them.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Aug 19, 2010 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

hmmm…. don’t remember him sticking out one way or another. stats say he only played 10 minutes per night those 2 games. maybe i pvr’d through his shifts and his skating looked regular speed.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Aug 19, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

haha

blurr’s right though, 2 games isn’t really enough, so he’s got at least as good of a chance as making the NHL as Mueller does.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

If he’s big, will take Andreychuk-like punishment in front of the goal and tip in lots of shots, I don’t care if he skates on double runners. :)

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it’s a matter of his skating looked so bad I worried if he could even get to the net in time to tip a shot.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Put him with a guy who can dangle long enough to let him lumber to the net, then feed Dion at the point.

Profit!

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I am willing to give him time to prove me wrong, just that i am not too encouraged to expect anything

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

That is the Leaf fan mantra. :)

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Also, to be fair, he got 34 points in 39 games at Vermont. At the same age, in the same number of games, Stalberg had 46 points. That’s a material difference. He also had only 48 points in his first 3 seasons combined.

I just don’t see anything in him that suggests an F, C or S role. But I’ll happily admit he’s still (kind of) young, so who knows.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Excellent excellent post

Only change I would make is, like Karina, swap Caputi for Mueller, just based on the fact that he has the NA Ice experience. Otherwise, I think it was bang on

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 3:46 PM EDT reply actions  

Yes, Caputi at this stage has more of a shot at immediate success than Mueller

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

I basically think he’ll be given the shot first because he really has to prove he can make the NHL this year, or else he’s probably done.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Done at 21 years old?

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

He’s absolutely dominated the AHL, there’s nothing else he can learn in that league.
If he can’t make it work in the NHL, he’ll have to re-invent himself.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

dominated?

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Did really well for a guy his age.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can live with that

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

he scored a goal every two games, and was close to a ppg player at 20………..not dominating but better than most

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

He needs to be stronger to play the way he currently plays

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

He’s been through, what, 3 NHL camps so far? If he doesn’t make it, I’d be surprised.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s fair, I just fell too in love with the Mueller-Penner comparison! Wishful thinking…

Competition in camp is a good thing.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 19, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can see why you would, hopefully Mueller knows how to use his size effectively

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

he likes to smash things
I think he will do well here

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

he does?

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

mueller ist zehr truculent

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 19, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

going just by his PIM and the highlight vid someone posted after the signing, i’ll go with yes

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Either that or he takes really dumb penalties (judging by his PIMs)

Toronto Maple Leafs: Nowhere to go but up!

by LeafFan1989 on Aug 19, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s OK. Our PK is awesome.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Aug 19, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would modify it with

Kadri, as per the Birky post from yesterday.

Without 15 goals from him, we can forget about the playoffs.

Kadri either makes the team out of training camp, making Grabovski expendable immediately, or Grabovski gets hurt and Kadri takes his spot. But either way he needs to be on this line.

The most pessimistic Leafs fan on the board.

by Peter de Chatham on Aug 19, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Without 15 goals from him, we can forget about the playoffs.

Yes we are putting the weight of the playoffs on a 19 year old who has yet to play a single game. SERIOUSLY?

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

BUT HE NEEDS TO BE ON THE SECOND LINE AND SCORE US A ZILLION POINTS

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

He’s already supplanted a 59-point man as our defacto #2 centre, dontchaknow?

Now with 25% fewer operable limbs.

by Sergei Puckizin on Aug 19, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

We’re paper thin at centre.

I can’t fathom any scenario where a 24 year old with a half season under his belt and a 19 year old rookie make Grabovski expendable immediately.

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Aug 19, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

YOUR LOGIC HAS NO PLACE HERE

KADRI ON THE FIRST LINE, BOZAK ON THE 2ND!

You may be taking Jared a little too seriously

by JaredFromLondon on Aug 19, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

if it works in NHL10, it’ll work in real life.

This is my signature.

by blurr1974 on Aug 19, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

BANNED!!1

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 19, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

indeed!

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Aug 19, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

You sir are awesome

Fairweather fans can go to hell
Equal oppurtunity asshole and a proud member of the PPPPP
Follow me on twitter: leafer1984

by leafer1984 on Aug 19, 2010 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

He’s a stealth key

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Aug 19, 2010 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Aaand

I’m going to rec this post.

"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"

by JP Nikota on Aug 19, 2010 8:20 PM EDT reply actions  

This whole post is wrong.

What you actually need to learn from the 06-07 ducks…is that Tim Brent is required to win a Stanley Cup.

In all honesty, fantastic post. Great read.

by Bower Power on Aug 20, 2010 2:00 AM EDT reply actions  

The ’67 Sound and PPP overlords, do you mind if I Fuller use this post as a base for a Caps-centric one? I mean, I want to quote passages like this

In fact, the Ducks broke camp with three veteran defencemen (Niedermayer, Pronger and O’Donnell); … both played one game.

And, of course, I’ll link. I’ll send you a copy before I publish if you want.

If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want craziness, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want humor, go to Battle of California.If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog (now featuring two Penguins fans as co-authors) and Twitter.

by red army line on Aug 21, 2010 6:39 AM EDT reply actions  

No problem from me, would be interested in what you say about the Caps’ defence. For all everyone harps on them losing to Mtl because they needed D, if I recall correctly in the 4 games they lost they only gave up 2 or 3 goals per game. Impressed to see GMGM has not made any panic moves, that series just seemed like bad luck incarnate to me.

by The '67 Sound on Aug 22, 2010 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks

I think GA went 3, 5 (switched goalies), 1, 3, 3, 4, 2. Something like that, including ENGs.~3GAA
I think GF went 2, 6 (switched goalies), 5, 6, 1, 1, 1. Anyways, I guess it’s good to note that this was MTL that didn’t break even at ES during the regular season (and against the Caps, too—their PP and the Caps’ lack thereof was the tipping point).

It’ll be finished and up tonight. You can follow the “My blog” link in my signature. Warning though, it’s not as good as this one ;)

If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want craziness, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want humor, go to Battle of California.If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog (now featuring two Penguins fans as co-authors) and Twitter.

by red army line on Aug 22, 2010 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

it was just some aberrant save results coming from halak. those last 2 games each had something like 90-100 shots directed at the net, and halak’s save count went 37, 53, 41 in those last 3 games.

at any point of the season, the caps can switch from 19 goals in 4 games to a slump of 3 goals in 3 games.. it was just unfortunate that it happened to be in one playoff series.

interesting to see how ovie dictates the team’s personality this season:
will he want them to keep the high-flying, high energy game all season long, and risk being caught once again by a stifling defensive game in the playoffs?
or will he take the “82 games is just a warm-up for the real thing” mentality, and want a bit more reserved game for the bulk of the season, gearing up around february/march?

i know its been said before, but every russian player had a terrible end to the season after the olympics… they all seemed to be in shock after being bounced so early from the games. without that happening this winter, they will all be able to keep their excitement/motivation/etc down the stretch.

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 27, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Your best source for quality Toronto Maple Leafs news, rumours, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Frank_serpico_by_drawmanou_small
How to Value Mikhail Grabovski

Recent FanPosts

N907005365_1934770_7971_small
Leafs vs. Habs and the red hot $cott Gomez!!
Black_sox_small
First-time jersey purchase
Blawrie_small
Irresponsible Speculation Time
Syrupglleaf17lg_small
The Stretch Drive Schedule: DIY Analysis (AKA I have way too much time on my hands)
Leafs_small
Heartbreaking S-O Loss to Penguins
N907005365_1934770_7971_small
Complaining like an All-Star
Small
Mental Health and Kevin Bieksa
Leafs_small
AllStar Fantasy Draft........P'neuf Already
Frank_serpico_by_drawmanou_small
Team Defense Cap Hit vs. Performance

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

StatCounter

wordpress visitor


Chief Blogging Officers

Calvin_small PPP

Aen1_small Chemmy

PPP's Girlfriends

Don_t_panic_small SkinnyFish

Picture_1_small JP Nikota

Fg_small birky

Christian-hanson-wrecks-brian-o_1__small Bower Power