Ed Willes: Canucks' Linden revamp left in the dust by Leafs' Shana-plan

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

Evidently you've never taken a look at their prospect pool.

 

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Why do you think that?

The Marlies are in great shape and there are several good young prospects coming up from elsewhere soon as well. You aren’t suggesting that their farm is inadequate, are you?

I thought the Leafs had a great draft this year, which ON will somehow equate to Leaf-fluffing. 

Translation: "No, I haven't."

 

Marlies coach even said their D prospects are "years away".

[spook007]

4 hours ago, Undrafted said:

I can actually answer that from experience, having lived there for many years and the answer is "no".  Leafs fans in Toronto pretty much demand that the local/national media pay homage to "Canada's Team".  This is why SN hires and gives webspace to pro-Leafs bloggers like McIndoe and Dangle; because that's what their primary market wants

This... 

Can't for the life of me understand a local news paper would be anything other than supportive of the club their readers support.

Its almost as if they get kick out of belittling the hand that feeds them... find it unbelievable 

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Most city's have constructive criticism but the level of fabricated negative narrative that comes to the Canucks from its local media sets a bar at a new low that is for sure.   Even the Eastern media types notice it (EF one of the few who says it publicly but it is talked about a LOT).   Canucks have arguably the best prospect pool in their entire history as an NHL franchise and the "media" wish to criticize it with a non-comparable?

Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but this constantly complaining and ridiculing the Canucks, would not have been possible anywhere else, I've been. 

People would just stop buying their papers... 

Its the behaviour of children.

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

The Leafs certainly had their brown bag years, and media wasn't necessarily kind but I don't recall seeing what we see of their coverage of the Canucks right from when they started falling in 2012.  They were so very eager to start jumping all over them and running them down, as if they'd been gritting their teeth the past decade at their success.  Nothing was more proof positive than after this draft, where instead of talking about how Benning got exactly what the Canucks needed in a PMD with Hughes falling to them, some TSN adolescents giggled like schoolgirls mocking his dye-job.  Top-notch sporting coverage.

Look no further than the video of the clowns Paterson and Botchford discussing Brisebois.... Sitting making fun of his name, or trying to.... things most of us probably tried to do in grade 4 to 6.... Pathetic.

I often don't agree with the local press here in the UK, but have never seen such childish moronic behaviour from journalists. 

Wish the Canucks would just go out and publicly say, we do not wish to see these journalists at our news conferences... end off.

[189lb enforcers?]

3 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

 

Translation: "No, I haven't."

 

Marlies coach even said their D prospects are "years away".

Ya, ya... How did that inferior Marlies D prospect group do against the Canucks’ during these past AHL playoffs?

 

 

Feel free to rip on TO all you like, but trashing their prospects is folly, especially considering that so many of that club’s kids have already left the farm, and play meaningful minutes in the NHL, it makes their youth, not just prospects, look pretty damn good, comparatively speaking.  

 

If I were comparing pools created since 2014, I wouldn’t be so quick to laugh at the Leafs, who are undeniably a better club at this point, but their future looks great as well. I doubt the Canucks will catch them during this next decade. I hope so, but doubt it.

 

As an aside, who had more draft picks this year, the Canucks or the Leafs? 

Have the Canucks ever had more picks during the Slim vs Shanny plan eras?

 

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

47 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

If those are bogus, unbelievable odds, then what are the real ones?

Which do you endorse and why?

These are odds that gambling houses come up with. They have zero basis in fact. It's basically to promote gambling. 

 

Without any of the teams having playing a single game or determining if any of the new acquisitions have established chemistry with their new team, there is really no way to know how things will play out. Vegas being a prime example of this. This is the definition of premature

 

I don't endorse any odds, but if I did, I wouldn't endorse these because they are way off. 

 

[shazzam]

It's been pointed out that the Leafs sucked for over a decade. They've had a failed rebuild already and had to rebuild the rebuild.

 

We've been in reluctant to do the rebuild. The twins were here to stay and the club felt like they should at least try remain competitive. I would say the team finally caved in when they decided to move burr and Hansen at the deadline. Let's hope we have a solid core of young players that will reach their potential. We not far from going on an uptrend in the standings. Draft picks will get lower and lower. The drafting will be put to the test

[oldnews]

54 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

 

that's what I thought.

 

backtrack and divert.

 

you've got no answer.

[Gaudette Celly]

Then why don't you explain how "Their D is slowly emerging and it should align for a nice long era for that club" when their own coach says they are "years away"?

 

Dermott made the roster partway through, and... Nielson has regressed.  Rosen, Holl, career AHLers.  LIljegren, Lindgren, and Borgman yet to be determined.  Then there's their roster players.  Carrick a borderline NHLer, Hainsey 37, Zaitsev with a massive contract they're already looking to unload after just one year, Gardiner completely exposed by the Bruins and pending UFA.  And their fix so far?  Sign Marincin and Jordan Subban.  They have arguably one of the worst d-corps in the league, kiddie-pool depth, and not much on the way.

 

Sounds like just the usual throw-in claim that you hoped nobody would call you on for it being completely arbitrary, made up in order to support your case.

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

Wadr to the 'experts' - top 4 D are every bit as, if not more important, than 4 forwards.....

 

Hedman

McDonagh

Stralman

Sergachev

 

Josi

Subban

Ellis

Ekholm

 

Byfuglien

Trouba

Morrisey

Myers

 

Reilly

Gardiner

Hainsey

Zaitsev

and to take this a step further

 

Stamkos

Kucherov

Point

Palat/Gourde/MIller/Johnson

-

Hedman

McDonagh

Stralman

Sergachev

 

Johansen

Forsberg

Arvidsson

Turris/Fiala/Smith

-

Josi

Subban

Ellis

Ekholm

 

 

Wheeler

Scheifele

Laine

Ehlers/Connor

-

Byfuglien

Trouba

Morrisey

Myers

 

And then there is the rest of their relative depth.

And their prospect pools.

 

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I thought the Leafs had a great draft this year, which ON will somehow equate to Leaf-fluffing. 

You're playing the weak "so what you're saying" game.  And slipping this crap into posts where you're not quoting or tagging me.  Weak wadr.

 

avoiding the simple / 'hard' questions about your flip-flopping about the on again / off again Leaf rebuild. 

 

#proper-rebuild

vs

deadline playoff rentals at the expense of 2nd round picks.

 

but. but "still rebuilding" lol.   Can see why you want to avoid that subject and prop up crap I haven't said as opposed to dealing with what I have said.

 

Let us know when the rebuild starts, stops, starts again, stops again, so we can all track where we are in the laughable contradiction.

 

Since you're spinning off on the draft - is a 29th and 52nd overall pick in the first two rounds of a deep draft for defensemen more evidence of the #proper-rebuild?

 

[189lb enforcers?]

11 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Then why don't you explain how "Their D is slowly emerging and it should align for a nice long era for that club" when their own coach says they are "years away"?

 

Dermott made the roster partway through, and... Nielson has regressed.  Rosen, Holl, career AHLers.  LIljegren, Lindgren, and Borgman yet to be determined.  Then there's their roster players.  Carrick a borderline NHLer, Hainsey 37, Zaitsev with a massive contract they're already looking to unload after just one year, Gardiner completely exposed by the Bruins and pending UFA.  And their fix so far?  Sign Marincin and Jordan Subban.  They have arguably one of the worst d-corps in the league, kiddie-pool depth, and not much on the way.

 

Sounds like just the usual throw-in claim that you hoped nobody would call you on for it being completely arbitrary, made up in order to support your case.

... yet to be determined... like OJ, Hughes, Woo and the rest of the Canucks kid D.

 

You didn’t call me on anything. What you did do is take a dump on a prospect pool that has seen many graduates leave, but still remains an enviable pool.

The way you must downgrade the ‘young’ Leafs Dcore is as predictable as this site gets, which I expect on a fan-site, but count me out when it comes to using double standards to judge prospects, as is certainly the case in the way you frame  the quip, “yet to be determined”.

I guess that makes the entire Canucks youth a joke too then... years away, as it goes. If that’s the case, I’d say that’s pretty much on par for a rebuilding team’s cupboard. 

 

Slowly emerging? Well, a couple of kids made the jump and might stick this year. There are others that will ripen on the farm, obviously, supplementing the Leafs young core as they become available. Nothing to difficult to grasp there. Each year should see one or more Dmen become available, however that might look. Sounds like the Canucks huh... 

 

[DeNiro]

20 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Then why don't you explain how "Their D is slowly emerging and it should align for a nice long era for that club" when their own coach says they are "years away"?

 

Dermott made the roster partway through, and... Nielson has regressed.  Rosen, Holl, career AHLers.  LIljegren, Lindgren, and Borgman yet to be determined.  Then there's their roster players.  Carrick a borderline NHLer, Hainsey 37, Zaitsev with a massive contract they're already looking to unload after just one year, Gardiner completely exposed by the Bruins and pending UFA.  And their fix so far?  Sign Marincin and Jordan Subban.  They have arguably one of the worst d-corps in the league, kiddie-pool depth, and not much on the way.

 

Sounds like just the usual throw-in claim that you hoped nobody would call you on for it being completely arbitrary, made up in order to support your case.

Something tells me Babcock and management are not on the same page either.

 

He'll play along cause why wouldn't you if you`re making 6 million a year? But this is a guy that has coached some amazing championship teams, he knows what it takes. He knows they're nowhere near being a perennial contender. They just don't have the depth you need. It takes more than a "big four".

 

Now they've pretty much shortened their window to around 4 years with not much coming up in terms of high end prospects. They're also going to be too good to get top pick any time soon so odds are unless they trade a core player or top picks for that depth, it's not gonna happen.

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

7 hours ago, smokes said:

Shanahan hasn't been management in Toronto for 7 years

Ignoring the 7 previous years of ineptitude so your premise can work is poor analysis.  

[rawkdrummer]

T.O. won? the lottery

What did we ever win??

 

[appleboy]

There is a reason that D men are so highly valued. Very difficult to find.

[Me_]

14 minutes ago, rawkdrummer said:

T.O. won? the lottery

What did we ever win??

 

The Leafs won:

 

The 1918 Stanley Cup.

The 1922 Stanley Cup.

The 1932 Stanley Cup.

The 1942 Stanley Cup.

The 1945 Stanley Cup.

The 1947 Stanley Cup.

The 1948 Stanley Cup.

The 1949 Stanley Cup.

The 1951 Stanley Cup.

The 1962 Stanley Cup.

The 1963 Stanley Cup.

The 1964 Stanley Cup.

The 1967 Stanley Cup.

 

 

[CanadianRugby]

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

Wadr to the 'experts' - top 4 D are every bit as, if not more important, than 4 forwards.....

 

Hedman

McDonagh

Stralman

Sergachev

 

Josi

Subban

Ellis

Ekholm

 

Byfuglien

Trouba

Morrisey

Myers

 

Reilly

Gardiner

Hainsey

Zaitsev

Penguins top 5 D when they won their last cup.

Maatta

Daley

Dumoulin

Hainsey

Schultz

 

Goals against that year, ranked 17th out of 30 in the league.  

 

They won the cup with a below average defensive core because they had the #1 offense and 3 solid centres.  

 

Defense could be the downfall of the Leafs, though it's also very possible that their ridiculous centre depth wins it for them.  

 

 

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

You didn’t call me on anything. What you did do is take a dump on a prospect pool that has seen many graduates leave, but still remains an enviable pool.

Great, so since you won't name these great defencemen they have (yet I even named who they have for you since you wouldn't), then what's the extent of this "enviable pool"?  You cannot give a single name of a defenceman, let alone identify this entire "enviable pool".  And what "many graduates"?  You cannot even name ONE.

 

Quote

The way you must downgrade the ‘young’ Leafs Dcore is as predictable as this site gets...

I even named the players for you, and you still cannot answer the question.

 

 

What's predictable is that you make claims with zero substance, then deflect and try to tu quoque fallacy your way out of it.

 

Quote

Slowly emerging? Well, a couple of kids made the jump and might stick this year. There are others that will ripen on the farm, obviously, supplementing the Leafs young core as they become available.

Again!  Who?  When?  I gave you Dermott who played down the stretch.  One, and still unproven.  You cannot name a single one because you're making it all up, and sound like nothing but a Leaf-fluffing wannabe troll.

 

You're not saying anything, just deflecting, typing words, and being a waste of time.  Bring substance or stop making such empty meaningless claims.  And if you're just trying to troll the fanbase at least put in some effort.  Either way, bring SOMETHING.  You're terribly boring.

[Westcoasting]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

These are odds that gambling houses come up with. They have zero basis in fact. It's basically to promote gambling. 

 

Without any of the teams having playing a single game or determining if any of the new acquisitions have established chemistry with their new team, there is really no way to know how things will play out. Vegas being a prime example of this. This is the definition of premature

 

I don't endorse any odds, but if I did, I wouldn't endorse these because they are way off. 

 

So Vegas odds are given to maximize even betting across the board of teams. They make money from money being bet evenly on every team out there. Right now after Tavares signed there must have been a lot of betting on Toronto so they lower the odds to get a gambler to consider all the other teams. Likewise the Canucks are not getting much interest so they increase the odds to the point where people bet on them as well.

 

This post wasn't directed at you Philip i used it for your own thoughts on it. Many people look at Vegas odds for whatever event and think a team with the worst odds is the worst team etc!

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Something tells me Babcock and management are not on the same page either.

 

He'll play along cause why wouldn't you if you`re making 6 million a year? But this is a guy that has coached some amazing championship teams, he knows what it takes. He knows they're nowhere near being a perennial contender. They just don't have the depth you need. It takes more than a "big four".

 

Now they've pretty much shortened their window to around 4 years with not much coming up in terms of high end prospects. They're also going to be too good to get top pick any time soon so odds are unless they trade a core player or top picks for that depth, it's not gonna happen.

 

 

TO looks primed to yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  

 

Many posters last year commented on the Marleau signing as a premature move.  That it was going to mess up the cap.  That they needed defence. That they needed one more year to stockpile at least. 

 

Now their defence is looking worse than ours and they have even less resources to address I. Tavares is a great signing, but they will have to move a cheaper asset or assests to fix their

defence. 

 

The potential is there as they do have guys that will bring back solid returns.  But there is a lack of depth for the future. 

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, Me_ said:

The Leafs won:

 

The 1918 Stanley Cup.

The 1922 Stanley Cup.

The 1932 Stanley Cup.

The 1942 Stanley Cup.

The 1945 Stanley Cup.

The 1947 Stanley Cup.

The 1948 Stanley Cup.

The 1949 Stanley Cup.

The 1951 Stanley Cup.

The 1962 Stanley Cup.

The 1963 Stanley Cup.

The 1964 Stanley Cup.

The 1967 Stanley Cup.

 

 

Sure they won when there was six teams, but it’s been a long while. People born in the sixties are starting to collect their CPP now.