mjd1001

I am not as sure as others that Power will be a dominant D-man. I hope he will, and there are signs, but I think he still has a year or two at least to go until he is very good/great. But, I'm saying long term anyway. The best way to be a top team in the NHL is to take chances and sign your 'core' to long term deals. Overpay them in the early part of their contract so that in later years they aren't getting overpaid. With the commitments made to Cozens and Thompson, I say go all in...EVERYONE who identify an important piece going forward, lock up long term now. Overpay them now when you have the cap room.

I listened a bit to 590 today. Probably 20 minutes. Just one host and one guest talking, so not a lot of opinions, but in general: -You have to decide on the core. They seem 'entitled' and 'coddled'. If you trade just one of them, the 3 remaining guy will override any 'culture' that the new guy would bring in. If you are going to change the core, you need to move 2 of them. Tavares won't be moved because of his age/contract, so if you make some moves, 2 of the 3 of Matthews, Nylander, and Marner need to go. -As far as managment/coaching: Moves may be made here, but if you fire Keefe, its going to be a 'move to make a move' because he really has tried different things. Players clearly think they have control though, as when Keefe called them out as being 'soft' a while back, he had to 'walk back' those comments. Dubas actually did a good job the last few trade deadlines, not his fault. Shanahan? No one really knows what he does, if a member of management needs to go they think it should be Shanahan. -The guys on the station truly think the leafs are the most 'talented' team in the league. They did make one comment about running the current team out there 'one more year' and seeing how it goes, but then one guy said you have to make a decision on Matthews contract likely this offseason, so if there is even a chance you are going to make any changes, do so now. At least from the host/guest, there was not a lot of Angst, just almost a level of acceptance of the loss if the leafs end up not coming back from down 3 games.

A good point was made on the radio this morning when listening to a show out of Toronto. Carolina is missing some important pieces...Svechnikov, Pacioretti, and Teravainen. However, they are playing like a team that will absolutly refuse to be outworked, no matter if the 1st or 4th lines are on the ice.

The thing I'm surprised the most with is the Florida/Toronto series, or should I say the Toronto reaction to being down 0-2. On social media, there is a lot less Toronto Angst than I thought, a lot of people thinking being down 0-2 is just a minor inconvenience that will simply mean they will win in 6 or 7 games instead of 4 or 5 games now. AND, listening a bit on the Radio to 590 out of Toronto, most of the hosts have the same opinion. Instead of Toronto fans/media being super worried, they are still very very sure Toronto will win the next 4.

Ads on phones/web sites. Sure they have always been there but in the past few months it has gotten a lot worse. So much so that often time I'll 'relax' with my phone or tablet to catch up on some news or sites I follow, and after about 5 minutes I just give up. -Sites that give you the topic...and EVENTUALLY get to the story (not total clickbait) but they go on and on and on for paragraphs before they get to the point of the story. In the mean time, you have to scroll through 5 regular static ads, 3 pop ups, and its hard to read because as you are reading, the pop ups don't show up all at once but are staggered in so the story moves off the screen. -Legit web sites. I don't mean the gossip style ones but sites that are from legit news sources (some that you have to pay to subscribe to but you stil get ads) that let you start to read the article and 5 seconds later an ad shows up that takes up "HALF" the screen. Then you can 'close' it after the countdown timer goes from 10 sec to zero..but then the 'x' to close it is so small that when you try to press it most of the time your touching the screen actually triggers the ad itself and it takes you to the company site. WHEN you finally get to close that, you read for 5 more seconds, and another ad pops up blocking the center of the screen. Remove that and then the store 'moves again' where you have to scroll to find where it went to. As you swipe up on the screen to get back to where you were reading, another ad pops in at the EXACT spot that you are swiping, of course taking you to the web site of the company/product that ad is for. Again, in the past there were some fringe pages that used thesed tactics, but more and more sites are staring to do it when reading articles on a mobile device. AND, when a company forces an ad to you and it takes you to their pages, does that actually cause THAT Many people to buy their products? Any company that pays for those ads, If I remember them at all I am more likely to go out of my way to NOT support them.

No. I'm not a fan of him. I think hes on the downside of his career and the slide is getting quicker. Don't really see a good fit with this team. Would much rather watch one of the young guys take any spot he would take. So many reasons to not have him here. Please no.

I don't know what the analytics say, but eye test I wouldn't put Karlson in the top 3. I know, this point total gets him in there but his Defensive play is pretty awful at times. It seems like he put some effort into his own end 3-5 years ago and he got better, but he's back to being bad. I have seen more than one highlight of him this year where he is on the ice and a goal is scored against them where he kinda just stands there and does...nothing. 101 points is a lot, that means he was on the ice for a lot of goals for...but when your plus-minus is a negative 26 WITH 100 points for...that means you are on the ice for a LOT of goals against. The eye test of his play shows it. He has 25-30 more points than the rest of the top-10 D-men...but I am pretty sure his play and effort in his own end cost his team more goals against than that. Without a late Dahlin injury, he should be there instead of Karlsson. Because Dahlin got injured, Morrisey should be there instead of Karlsson.

Again, I'm not going to judge him on this one series when he was playing very hurt when he did play. Plus even if you do, it doesnt invalidate his entire career of being a shut-down center and being great at that with 'selective' hitting.

Boston was 'outhit' but Florida, but only slightly. 38-34 in hits per 60 during their series. Very close Bergeron also only played in 3 of the 7 games (he missed more than he played) and when he did play he wan't 100%, so this series is really not a good metric of how much he hits/how effective his team is because of it.

It wasn't brought up directly but I listed to an interesting discussion early in the season about hitting: -Patrice Bergeron was brought up. Not a huge hitter, but it was said what makes him effective as a defensive forward is partly because he doesn't hit. The few hits he does make are ones where there is virtually zero chance of it causing him to be out of the play. In today's NHL, you want to make no more contact than you need to make to not put yourself out of position, or to even make it 1 second slower to get back 'into the play'. Basically, the way the NHL is played today, most (not ALL, but most) hits do more to put a player out of position than the benefits they bring for 'finishing a check'.

Yet you keep spending time trying to get the last word in. Noticable that you won't respond directly to any of the points I explained in my last few points, but yet you feel the need to just say its ridiculous. Nothing to add to the actual discussion. Just want to criticize my post and then walk away. Way to step up for what a message board is here for.

Don't know much about him, but from what i just read, he's a lottery ticket. Has some potential, in a few years see what you have with him. Glad hes signed now.

Not sure how it would work, but I'm guessing if there are tickets available, some broker or at least a few people who live in the USA might buy them up and sell them in the 2nd hand market to leaf fans?

I'd be good with all of those.

Way to 'step up' and give reasons why. The fact that you think what I said is ridiculous just shows how ridiculously little you know. Let me try to educate you on a few things AGAIN: -The whole point of the converstation I was having with others on this topic was not who is good or not good, but rather WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN for HOF entrance. If you follow the conversation you will see that some think putting up a career full of numbers is good enough. Others think a HOF should only be for the elite-of-the-elite (players who are of MVP caliber, multiple championship pedigree.) SO I ask you again, how is my post ridiculous because the discussion is where to draw the line between those groups of players? Oh, don't bother answer, I know the anser, it ISN'T ridiculous, you just want to make a point that the converstaion had little to do with. And lets even go to the point about Hawerchuk. In the Era he played in, his stats were inflated. There were many years where his numbers looked great, but he wasn't even in the top 5 in points. If you 'normalize' his stats for the modern era, he would probably be at most a 400-450 goal, maybe a 1000 point guy. VERY GOOD numbers over a career, but to me now hall of fame. He is also a guy that I saw playing when I was a kid and even back then he stood out to me as a guy who was actaully pretty bad in terms of backchecking and his effort in that respect. Compared to his 'contemporarys', very little post season success, a lot less scoring in the post season. For his career, he was not in the top 10 in scoring (points per game) in the regular season, not in the top 10 scoring ppg in the playoffs either, was a minus player both in the playoffs and regular season. SO, does he have very good career numbers? Yes. Do I think he was dominant at any point in his career and an MVP contender (even in the conversation)? Nope. And to me, I am one of those people that I think the HOF is a bit watered down so players like him....Federko, maybe even Housley are the ones that fall into the "Hall of very good" category and not really the "Hall of fame/excellence". But I guess for people who don't follow the whole converstation, or who simply don't like what they hear, its just easier to say "your whole post is patently ridiculous". 🙄

Not kidding at all. The whole point about this conversation is where do you draw the line for getting into the HOF? Federko and Hawerchuk can be considered into that "hall of good", not the "hall of great". Neither one was the best at their position, or honestly even close to it. Neither carried their teams through the playoffs on a regular basis. And their numbers are WAY inflated for the era they played in. Good? Yes. Bordering on Great? Yes, but truly great? I'm saying no, that is why my response was I would put many of them into the same category as Housley, very good, all-star level players how put up GREAT numbers over a career but weren't game changers.

Calgary likes those guys...since the year 2000, among others they have had: Brian Sutter, Brent Sutter, 2 stints by Daryll Sutter, and throw in a Mike Keenan stint there too in Calgary. Then there was Bill Peters who had a stint there who had accusations of making racist comments and punching a player(s) during games. The Calgary organization sure does like its 'old school hockey' guys.

The funny thing about Toronto fans, they are convinced things are fixed against them and if you go to their boards, after every loss they have, I mean EVERY LOSS there are multiple comments about how the refs screwed them. Before the playoff series against Tampa, there was even a post where someone photoshopped a ref and put a Lightning logo on the front of his chest, saying the Leafs were going to have to beat Tampa and the Refs. I grew up watching the Leafs on Hockey Night in Canada and as a kid I actually liked them. They are the only team I think I ever liked at one time and stopped liking because of their fanbase and how they whine and cry and whine about officials ALL the time.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think all the hall of fames have too many players in them that aren't great. If it were up to me Housley would not be in there. Neither would Hawerchuk. I question the Sedins. Kevin Lowe no way. Housley gets in way before I would even consider Zubov. I never thought Ed Belfour was the reason his teams won. Bernie Federko...are you kidding me? Marion Hossa is the definition of getting in via longevity. Almost the same with Mark Recchi. So yes, Housley is marginal. But longevity and the numbers he put up put in in the same category as many of the above players. The NHL Hall of fame is NOT the hall of fame in reality, as you said it is the hall-of-very-good. But as long as they are going to inducte players like that, Housley deserves to be in just as much as some of the above players. I wisht it wasn't that way, but Hall of fames get vistiors by inducting players, not keeping them out.

4th all time scoring defenseman. I agree with you that he was never 'great' as in a dominant player who carried a team at an MVP level, but when you are 4th all time, that may get you in the HOF. I think the top forwards not in the HOF in career scoring are Turgeon/Roenick. (not couting active guys who aren't eligible yet). And you have to get well into the 30's in terms of ranking among forward before you find where those guys rank.

He was born in Toronto. Hall of Fame voters really do love their Canadian players, especially ones who were born right in the GTA....That has to give him at least another point or two IF he gets close.

Or, as others have said, the league is different now. Positions are more 'hybrid' than they used to be. In your Scheme, a CB can play safety or a S can be a nickel CB. Traditional DE's and OLBs aren't the same now as they were a decade ago. So, the same can be true about a TE. A TE can be a TE technically, but can be used as a new/different type of slot guy. Coaches/teams no longer draft guys to fit the 'model' of what the position traditionally was....now guys are drafted based on their skillset and schemes/plays are drawn around those skills.

I really can't figure out these playoffs. The majority of what I thought would happen is just wrong not even 2 weeks in: -I thought the Panthers were under-rated (not in the bottom 6 teams in the field) but I thought the Bruins would sweep them or at worst 5 games. I was wrong here. -I thought Toronto would move on in 4 or 5, and even if Tampa won a game the Leafs would dominate play. Wrong again. -Devils had a great season, but I thought this was the Rangers in 5 or 6, and the Rangers were the 2nd choice of mine to come out of the East. Looking bad here too. -Jets were hit hard with injuries, but I thought this was an even series, with it tipping the Jets way in 6 or 7. Way wrong here. -I thought the Hurricanes would make quick work of the Islanders, in 5, 6 at worst. Not looking good here. -Colorado was going to dispatch of the Kraken in 4 or 5. They were easily my pick to come out of the west again. Wrong. -Stars/Wild and Kings/Oilers I thought were toss ups. Those 2 are the only series I haven't been totally wrong on so far. Just when I was confident I had a pretty good handle on teams, reality punches one back in the face to take that confidence down a notch.

Twitter is handling this pick better than I thought. I don't know much about the guy but I'm fine with it. WR would have been nice, but i'm not too worked up over it. The Bills passing game dropped off quite a bit after Allens injury and it seemed to linger the rest of the year. If he is healthy, the Bills are a top 5 passing team in the league even without a first round receiver. If it wasn't an injury and his play legit got worse for some reason, then one of the rookie WR's in this draft wasn't going to change that anyway.

Agreed. Buiilding through the draft wasn't the problem. How you drafted was the problem, or trying to accelerate the process too much was the problem. Many of the people on here like to say what the Sabres have done in the past decade (or so) was wrong so that is why they need to make more aggressive moves instead of just waiting on the young guys. But again, there are 2 reasons why the past decade plus didn't work out 1.) bad drafting 2.) accelerating the rebuild too much. As far as drafting, the Sabres were awful in the few years leading up to the drought and through the drought. They had a lot of first round picks, but read this list of 1st and 2nd rounders they picked from 2004 - 2017. And yes, I picked those years because those are the years that set up your roster through the drought : -Drew Stafford, Mike Funk, Marek Zagrapan, Philipp Gogulla, Dennis Persson, Jonas Enroth, T.J. Brennan, Drew Schiestel, Tyler Myers and Ennis, Like Adam, Zack Kassian, Mark Psysk, Joel Armia, Mikhael Grigorenko, Zemgus, Jake McCabe, Risto, Zadarov,Connor Hurley, Justin Bailey Compher, Reinhart, Brendan Lemieux,Eric Cornell, Vaclav Karabacek, Eichel, Brendan Guhle, Alex Nylander, Rasmus Asplund, Mitts, Marcus Davidsson, UPL 16 first round picks. 17 second rounders. The Cornerstone building blocks of your team. Not a single one of them yet has 200 career goals. 8 of them never even made it to the NHL and played a single game. Another 6 had NHL careers so short they didn't even make it to 100 career games. (Yes, the numbers are similar with many other teams, but few other teams have SO few big hits) And of all those picks, 5 of them even being top 10 overall picks, how many superstars, or even stars are there? Reinhart (really a star? maybe I guess). Eichel? Over 14 years, 16 first rounders, 5 of them to 10 picks, and an additonal 17 2nd rounders....you generated a total of TWO players (that you needed to draft both 2nd overall) that can be considered anything close to difference makers. The strategy of 'draft and develop' isn't the problem. The probem was/is probably the 2nd worst drafting of any NHL team over the past 2 decades (I think only Arizona might be worse).