2020 Offseason Rebuild Thread

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

24 minutes ago, Buppy said:

That's why you'd have to trade them right away. (Ideally in this scenario we should have traded them before this year's draft.) Give the picks (or prospects would also work) time to develop. If you wait until they're on the cusp of UFA, your return will be lower and won't fit your timetable. You'd also have the secondary benefit of making the team worse in the short term and getting higher picks.

I'm not at all interested in making the team worse right now by sending off core players like Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi for picks or prospects. If you're concerned about getting a good return for these players perhaps consider not trading them at all or giving them longer contracts?

At age 29/30 is simply the point where I'd look around and decide if I'd want to move forward with them as vets or not regardless of what their contract looks like. If everything goes relatively well with these 3 players I'd be absolutely ok with moving into phase 2 (Larkin's 2nd contract) with them on the roster.

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm not at all interested in making the team worse right now by sending off core players like Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi for picks or prospects. If you're concerned about getting a good return for these players perhaps consider not trading them at all or giving them longer contracts?

At age 29/30 is simply the point where I'd look around and decide if I'd want to move forward with them as vets or not regardless of what their contract looks like. If everything goes relatively well with these 3 players I'd be absolutely ok with moving into phase 2 (Larkin's 2nd contract) with them on the roster.

But they aren't core players in your plan. You're skipping right over that stage of their careers to the "maybe they'd be worth keeping around as vet leaders" stage. They'll be 29 when Larkin's next contract starts, assuming they don't just bail in 3 years when they could be UFAs. They;ll be at the stage where they're likely starting to decline, possibly saddling us with bad contracts right in the middle of your planned cup window. Considering both AA and Mantha have at times had their work-ethic questioned, and neither of them have played a NHL playoff game at this point (nor, according to your plan, will they in the next two years at least), I don't think "veteran leader" is a role either would particularly well-suited for. 

If we're going to do anything with those guys, it needs to be done soon. Either build something with them, or trade them while we can still get a return that could contribute during Larkin's window.

 

[F.Michael 4,590]

A bit off topic...I'm curious for this time next year if Yzerman still has Blashill behind the bench?

A fair number of Dmen will be gone as well.

Will this be the time Stevie executes his game plan?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 hours ago, Buppy said:

But they aren't core players in your plan.

Who says that? All three could possibly be core forwards on this team till 35 or later. I don't know how their respective careers will play out over the next 4 years, or the next 10.

13 hours ago, Buppy said:

You're skipping right over that stage of their careers to the "maybe they'd be worth keeping around as vet leaders" stage.

So?

I think it's important to keep the core of this team intact for now. If we're going to accelerate and start becoming competitive again in 2 seasons, I think those 3 players will probably be crucial to that. 29/30 is simply the age I think we will need to reevaluate these players. Have their been injury problems? Have their been attitude problems? Are they good leaders/mentors for younger players? Are we close on compensation or far apart? Are there younger players ready to fill their roles? Etc Etc

14 hours ago, Buppy said:

They'll be 29 when Larkin's next contract starts, assuming they don't just bail in 3 years when they could be UFAs. They;ll be at the stage where they're likely starting to decline, possibly saddling us with bad contracts right in the middle of your planned cup window.

Which is precisely why I think we should take a hard look at them at that point of their career.

14 hours ago, Buppy said:

Considering both AA and Mantha have at times had their work-ethic questioned, and neither of them have played a NHL playoff game at this point (nor, according to your plan, will they in the next two years at least), I don't think "veteran leader" is a role either would particularly well-suited for. 

I'm not willing to say that yet. I think the next 4 year window is a good span of time to evaluate and project that though.

14 hours ago, Buppy said:

If we're going to do anything with those guys, it needs to be done soon. Either build something with them, or trade them while we can still get a return that could contribute during Larkin's window.

Again, I don't share your sense of urgency at all here.

Larkin will be 27 when his next contract begins. His window will very much still be open at that point.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, F.Michael said:

A bit off topic...I'm curious for this time next year if Yzerman still has Blashill behind the bench?

A fair number of Dmen will be gone as well.

Will this be the time Stevie executes his game plan?

If I'm Stevie I give Blash the next two seasons to earn my trust. After that I start to look around the room if necessary.

[F.Michael 4,590]

17 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If I'm Stevie I give Blash the next two seasons to earn my trust. After that I start to look around the room if necessary.

Agreed...HOWEVER...

What if the Leafs bow out early in May 2020, and Babs is available?

Given their history (Babcock, and Yzerman that is) - I'd say there's a good chance that Babs is back in Detroit for the 2020/2021 season.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

6 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

Agreed...HOWEVER...

What if the Leafs bow out early in May 2020, and Babs is available?

Given their history (Babcock, and Yzerman that is) - I'd say there's a good chance that Babs is back in Detroit for the 2020/2021 season.

Oh god. IDK. On the one hand, I really like Babs as a coach. On the other he spurned us for our eternal rival and should be drawn and quartered.

Think I'd rather have Stevie take a fresh approach like he did with Cooper

[F.Michael 4,590]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Oh god. IDK. On the one hand, I really like Babs as a coach. On the other he spurned us for our eternal rival and should be drawn and quartered.

Think I'd rather have Stevie take a fresh approach like he did with Cooper

Unlike some here - I got nuthin. but respect for Babs...Yeah he's got an ego, is stubborn, and may be a bit overrated, but all in all he's still a damn good coach.

Depending upon who else is available - I'd certainly rank Babs at, or near the top of my list...But that's just me.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

16 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

Unlike some here - I got nuthin. but respect for Babs...Yeah he's got an ego, is stubborn, and may be a bit overrated, but all in all he's still a damn good coach.

Depending upon who else is available - I'd certainly rank Babs at, or near the top of my list...But that's just me.

Me too. It's more or less the optics I have a problem with.

He's our guy... until suddenly we look bad and the Leafs look good...  and now that we look good again and the Leafs look bad he wants to come crawling back? Nah, bro, you picked your bed.

[F.Michael 4,590]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Me too. It's more or less the optics I have a problem with.

He's our guy... until suddenly we look bad and the Leafs look good...  and now that we look good again and the Leafs look bad he wants to come crawling back? Nah, bro, you picked your bed.

Maybe it's just me getting old, but I'm not the type to hold a grudge - especially when you consider he did this...

He did us good while he coached the Wings...Yeah he might've pi$$ed off Lids/Dats/Hank from time to time, but how many coaches that are looked upon as being  1 of the best are pals with their players?

His message was getting stale - time to move on, and siphon some big time $$$ from the Leafs (hopefully for him it's 'MURICAN, and not that useless Canadian monopoly money).

If he came back in a year, or two - fine by me...He wouldn't be the only coach to return to his previous stomping grounds.

[Buppy 1,720]

5 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Who says that? All three could possibly be core forwards on this team till 35 or later. I don't know how their respective careers will play out over the next 4 years, or the next 10.

So?

I think it's important to keep the core of this team intact for now. If we're going to accelerate and start becoming competitive again in 2 seasons, I think those 3 players will probably be crucial to that. 29/30 is simply the age I think we will need to reevaluate these players. Have their been injury problems? Have their been attitude problems? Are they good leaders/mentors for younger players? Are we close on compensation or far apart? Are there younger players ready to fill their roles? Etc Etc

Which is precisely why I think we should take a hard look at them at that point of their career.

I'm not willing to say that yet. I think the next 4 year window is a good span of time to evaluate and project that though.

Again, I don't share your sense of urgency at all here.

Larkin will be 27 when his next contract begins. His window will very much still be open at that point.

"Becoming competitive again in 2 seasons" gives a very different impression than "Next Window: Larkin's Second Contract AKA the return to cup contention", so maybe I just have the wrong idea about what you actually expect the next four seasons to look like. But going off the "cup window opens in year 5" your original post suggested I'd still say we'd be much better off with a few kids in their early 20s just entering their prime then a few guys at the end of theirs (especially if you think there's even any chance you might not want to keep them). There are always "vet leaders" to be had in free agency. Plus the risk of losing them in three years whether we want to or not. Hell, if we're not contenders before Larkin's current deal is up, I wouldn't be so sure he'd even want to stay. Year 3 for the window opening changes things obviously. 

Personally I hope the management has not yet written off this season (much less next) the way fans have. Grim as it looks from our off-season so far, I'm still hoping we see enough growth from the younger guys that we feel comfortable making a move or two this year, or at the very least head into next summer with a much more proactive and aggressive attitude.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

22 minutes ago, Buppy said:

"Becoming competitive again in 2 seasons" gives a very different impression than "Next Window: Larkin's Second Contract AKA the return to cup contention", so maybe I just have the wrong idea about what you actually expect the next four seasons to look like.

In 2 seasons is when I expect Yzerman to put his foot on the gas. I think we're due for another offseason next year similar to this one we just had based on the stop gaps he signed and the looming expansion. By foot on the gas I mean instead of signing a stop gap like Filppula, you go for FAs or trades like Panarin or Gusev, in a general sense. Does that mean I think we'll be big time players after year 2? No. I just think that's the right time based on our existing contracts and the expansion draft passing to get creative and abandon the holding pattern we seem to be in. I think 2 years of successful tweaking and roster building at the end of this window could put us into a position to contend beginning in year 5, the start of Larkin's next contract.

32 minutes ago, Buppy said:

 I'd still say we'd be much better off with a few kids in their early 20s just entering their prime then a few guys at the end of theirs (especially if you think there's even any chance you might not want to keep them). There are always "vet leaders" to be had in free agency. Plus the risk of losing them in three years whether we want to or not. Hell, if we're not contenders before Larkin's current deal is up, I wouldn't be so sure he'd even want to stay. Year 3 for the window opening changes things obviously.

We can agree to disagree here then I guess. I personally do not want to cycle out good players like Bertuzzi, AA, and Mantha, for draft picks that might not even be diddly, just because those 3 players might be 29 when we contend again. 1. Because I believe in building team culture (I do not think random FA vets are an equal substitute for team vets) 2. 29 is not that old to me, many players have solid years of productivity after this age. 3. Constantly hitting the reset button does not appeal to me.

If we are at serious risk of losing these players then trade them prior to UFA. I don't want anyone who does not want to be here. If that return is slightly diminished because the player is 28 and not 25 it doesn't really bother me at all. That's acceptable risk.

46 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Personally I hope the management has not yet written off this season (much less next) the way fans have. Grim as it looks from our off-season so far, I'm still hoping we see enough growth from the younger guys that we feel comfortable making a move or two this year, or at the very least head into next summer with a much more proactive and aggressive attitude.

I don't think management has written the season off. We're just in a holding pattern. Not ready to invest in big names and cap yet... but here's a Fippula, see what you can do with that for the time being...

I agree with you that this year will be all about the kids progression. Maybe if we can have enough success Yzerman will be motivated to accelerate this thing faster. I just think it would be smart to lay low for one more off season after this regular season. Then hit the ground running.

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

In 2 seasons is when I expect Yzerman to put his foot on the gas. I think we're due for another offseason next year similar to this one we just had based on the stop gaps he signed and the looming expansion. By foot on the gas I mean instead of signing a stop gap like Filppula, you go for FAs or trades like Panarin or Gusev, in a general sense. Does that mean I think we'll be big time players after year 2? No. I just think that's the right time based on our existing contracts and the expansion draft passing to get creative and abandon the holding pattern we seem to be in. I think 2 years of successful tweaking and roster building at the end of this window could put us into a position to contend beginning in year 5, the start of Larkin's next contract.

The way I see it we have Larkin, Mantha, AA, and Bert, and maybe a couple guys like Dekeyser, Bowey, De La Rose, and Glendening could still be depth/role players. Then you add in where Zadina, Ras, Veleno, Hronek, Cholo, McIsaac, and maybe a couple others, could be with two more years of development. Then you add some good FAs on top of that... If that team isn't ready to compete for a cup, it probably never will be. Blow it up and start over while we can still get something for the good parts. If we think that's where we'll be after three years...still hoping a couple more summers can turn us into something...may as well not even wait. Make the moves now so maybe we'll be in a situation where a couple more summers will make a difference.

5 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

We can agree to disagree here then I guess. I personally do not want to cycle out good players like Bertuzzi, AA, and Mantha, for draft picks that might not even be diddly, just because those 3 players might be 29 when we contend again. 1. Because I believe in building team culture (I do not think random FA vets are an equal substitute for team vets) 2. 29 is not that old to me, many players have solid years of productivity after this age. 3. Constantly hitting the reset button does not appeal to me.

These arguments don't make sense. Expansion draft is a non-issue, as it's literally impossible for signing a UFA to leave you any worse off than you'd be by not signing one. You're worried about the uncertainty of picks/prospects, but perfectly ok with the uncertainty of whether you would or even could keep those players. 1. Team culture; even though you admit you're not sure if you would even want those players in that role, and despite the fact that we'd still have Larkin, plus kids like Hronek, Ras, and Zadina who would be in their mid-20s with several years of experience, plus you're going to have veteran FAs regardless so I don't see why they couldn't provide any leadership. 2. Never said they couldn't be productive, just that they'd be in decline and that with your timetable it'd be better to replace them with players entering their prime. 3. The way I see it your "holding pattern" is already "hitting the reset button", especially given that you think we need another 4 seasons of work before we'll be relevant again. Also don't see how you're getting "constantly" from one proposal, particularly when it's clear I'm advocating pushing the rebuild into high gear right away. There could be a lot of quality UFAs on the market next year. We already wasted one summer "holding". Hopefully we don't do it again. Our cup window would probably only be 5-6 years even in the best case. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, Buppy said:

The way I see it we have Larkin, Mantha, AA, and Bert, and maybe a couple guys like Dekeyser, Bowey, De La Rose, and Glendening could still be depth/role players. Then you add in where Zadina, Ras, Veleno, Hronek, Cholo, McIsaac, and maybe a couple others, could be with two more years of development. Then you add some good FAs on top of that... If that team isn't ready to compete for a cup, it probably never will be. Blow it up and start over while we can still get something for the good parts. If we think that's where we'll be after three years...still hoping a couple more summers can turn us into something...may as well not even wait. Make the moves now so maybe we'll be in a situation where a couple more summers will make a difference.

I think we are 100% on the same page here, with at least what's bolded.

I guess I just have more faith in the current core we're about to grow with than you do.

9 minutes ago, Buppy said:

These arguments don't make sense. Expansion draft is a non-issue, as it's literally impossible for signing a UFA to leave you any worse off than you'd be by not signing one. You're worried about the uncertainty of picks/prospects, but perfectly ok with the uncertainty of whether you would or even could keep those players. 1. Team culture; even though you admit you're not sure if you would even want those players in that role, and despite the fact that we'd still have Larkin, plus kids like Hronek, Ras, and Zadina who would be in their mid-20s with several years of experience, plus you're going to have veteran FAs regardless so I don't see why they couldn't provide any leadership. 2. Never said they couldn't be productive, just that they'd be in decline and that with your timetable it'd be better to replace them with players entering their prime. 3. The way I see it your "holding pattern" is already "hitting the reset button", especially given that you think we need another 4 seasons of work before we'll be relevant again. Also don't see how you're getting "constantly" from one proposal, particularly when it's clear I'm advocating pushing the rebuild into high gear right away. There could be a lot of quality UFAs on the market next year. We already wasted one summer "holding". Hopefully we don't do it again. Our cup window would probably only be 5-6 years even in the best case. 

I can tell you're bored

17 minutes ago, Buppy said:

 Expansion draft is a non-issue, as it's literally impossible for signing a UFA to leave you any worse off than you'd be by not signing one.

Yeah man expansion is a total non issue. Won't even effect us probably. Signing more good players right now certainly wouldn't make it tougher either. That much is clear.

20 minutes ago, Buppy said:

 You're worried about the uncertainty of picks/prospects, but perfectly ok with the uncertainty of whether you would or even could keep those players.

I operate under the wild assumption that prospect projection is widely different than contract negotiation.

Also there's a difference between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk. I think one is a clear example of the later and the other a clear example of the former.

30 minutes ago, Buppy said:

1. Team culture; even though you admit you're not sure if you would even want those players in that role, and despite the fact that we'd still have Larkin, plus kids like Hronek, Ras, and Zadina who would be in their mid-20s with several years of experience, plus you're going to have veteran FAs regardless so I don't see why they couldn't provide any leadership

If you don't understand the difference between leadership from guys in their mid twenties and free lance vets between guys with 10 years experience in an organization I think you're either being purposefully obtuse, are incredibly young and naive, or your socially autistic.

37 minutes ago, Buppy said:

2. Never said they couldn't be productive, just that they'd be in decline and that with your timetable it'd be better to replace them with players entering their prime

Agree with your premise, disagree with your conclusion.

39 minutes ago, Buppy said:

 3. The way I see it your "holding pattern" is already "hitting the reset button", especially given that you think we need another 4 seasons of work before we'll be relevant again

You don't think we need 4 seasons of work? I'm being completely sincere and inquisitive here

41 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Also don't see how you're getting "constantly" from one proposal, particularly when it's clear I'm advocating pushing the rebuild into high gear right away. There could be a lot of quality UFAs on the market next year. We already wasted one summer "holding". Hopefully we don't do it again. Our cup window would probably only be 5-6 years even in the best case. 

You're drunk

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I think we are 100% on the same page here, with at least what's bolded.

I guess I just have more faith in the current core we're about to grow with than you do.

Yeah man expansion is a total non issue. Won't even effect us probably. Signing more good players right now certainly wouldn't make it tougher either. That much is clear.

If you don't understand the difference between leadership from guys in their mid twenties and free lance vets between guys with 10 years experience in an organization I think you're either being purposefully obtuse, are incredibly young and naive, or your socially autistic.

You don't think we need 4 seasons of work? I'm being completely sincere and inquisitive here

The part you bolded wasn't even a complete idea. There was nothing there to agree or disagree with. Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2. To answer your last question here: No, I do not think we need 4 years. I think we could be a contender after 2. Even as soon as next year if we got really lucky. Maybe not President's Trophy winners/odds-on favorites, but good enough to feel we would have a legit shot at beating any team in the league in a 7-game series. If we are able to add some good FAs over the next two years, and we are still not at that point, I would have to start questioning whether or not that core of players would ever get there.

Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself.

The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument. 

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

Does adding Lafreniere solve your guys' issues?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

7 hours ago, Buppy said:

Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2. To answer your last question here: No, I do not think we need 4 years. I think we could be a contender after 2. Even as soon as next year if we got really lucky. Maybe not President's Trophy winners/odds-on favorites, but good enough to feel we would have a legit shot at beating any team in the league in a 7-game series. If we are able to add some good FAs over the next two years, and we are still not at that point, I would have to start questioning whether or not that core of players would ever get there.

I respect the optimism that you think the team can be a contender in two years, but based on Yzerman's behavior I don't think you're going to get your wish.

That's really the foundation of what I built my original post on. I was trying to divine Yzerman's general plan. Adding Fil and Nemeth for $6 mil for 2 years indicates to me that he has no intention of being competitive in the next 2 years unless the kids force us there. Lump an expansion draft on top of that and I think it's all the more reason to stand pat for the last year of Fil and Nemeth's contract.

I'm not saying that necessarily would have been my plan, I'm just trying to divine the immediate future and build out from there. Notice that MY plan is to immediately accelerate after the immediate 2 year stretch... I think our vision is more alike than it is different.

But basically you're okay pushing for a cup when Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi are 27, but if they're 29 it's better to just blow the team up again? Sorry, I think that's just silly willy. How old are these FA's you're planning to add over the next 2 seasons? My guess is they're probably gonna be around 29. What happens when you don't win the cup in 2 seasons or 3? Now you have even more "declining" players. Time to blow it up?

I think you're bored and you're being overly contentious. I have no problem being competitive in 2 years and I'm pretty amiable to most strategies, I just don't think that's very realistic based on the moves we've seen by Yzerman so far. If you disagree, then you have a lot more faith than me yes. I thought I was being overly optimistic saying we'd be contenders after 4 years lol. But at the end of the day I'm not throwing AA, Mantha, and Betuzzi out for draft picks just cause they're 29 and the rebuild wasn't as fast as you hoped. If you don't like that, call it difference in philosophy.

7 hours ago, Buppy said:

Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself.

You're not wrong, but this is really just a side point to my entire outlook that would only be distracting to dig into. Therefore I'll just concede the point.

7 hours ago, Buppy said:

The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument. 

Let's add this to the mix: Yzerman didn't build the Lightning through FA and openly admits he doesn't like FA, preferring to build a team through drafting and trading. So why do you think Yzerman is suddenly going to go FA heavy and floor the gas peddle to get us to cup contention in 2 years?

My point about leaders was I much prefer leaders who've been with a team for a while. Your off hand comment: "plus you're going to have veteran FAs regardless so I don't see why they couldn't provide any leadership." is what I primarily disagree with here. You make it sound like we can chuck in any old FA vet and they will be leaders. I think anyone who's been on a competitive team or in a competitive company, would say that's very naive. Most real leadership is built simply on experience and trust within a group. That's why I much I'd much prefer TEAM veterans to "FA vets".

Sure maybe you can add a star like Panarin and he can win the room in 6 months... but that means you're forsaking a few established young Red Wings on your team, for the CHANCE to overpay one FA who may or may not be a leader as well. I'd rather just keep a 29 year old well-liked Bertuzzi around.

Poophead

Edited July 31, 2019 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[gcom007 1,465]

21 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Me too. It's more or less the optics I have a problem with.

He's our guy... until suddenly we look bad and the Leafs look good...  and now that we look good again and the Leafs look bad he wants to come crawling back? Nah, bro, you picked your bed.

I really don’t see it that way personally. I get the optics, but I somewhat feel like the whole thing was a show, perhaps much like Holland bringing Yzerman in and heading to Edmonton. Blashill was going to get picked off and the thought was Babcock’s voice may have been getting stale at the time, which was probably true on some level. I don’t think there’s any bad blood at all and I think at this point the Leafs/Wings rivalry doesn’t have much legitimate steam anyways. When was the last time these teams met in the playoffs? And when was the last time the Leafs were really blowing us out of the water or a consistently great team? When was their last Cup? How many have we had since their last? Of course we don’t like the Leafs and it’s fun to keep up the rivalry idea, but the Avs of the late-90s the current Leafs are not in terms of legitimate rivalry.

So if it’s me making the call, if Babs gets canned, I’d bring him back. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, gcom007 said:

I really don’t see it that way personally. I get the optics, but I somewhat feel like the whole thing was a show, perhaps much like Holland bringing Yzerman in and heading to Edmonton. Blashill was going to get picked off and the thought was Babcock’s voice may have been getting stale at the time, which was probably true on some level. I don’t think there’s any bad blood at all and I think at this point the Leafs/Wings rivalry doesn’t have much legitimate steam anyways. When was the last time these teams met in the playoffs? And when was the last time the Leafs were really blowing us out of the water or a consistently great team? When was their last Cup? How many have we had since their last? Of course we don’t like the Leafs and it’s fun to keep up the rivalry idea, but the Avs of the late-90s the current Leafs are not in terms of legitimate rivalry.

So if it’s me making the call, if Babs gets canned, I’d bring him back. 

Fair enough. Forgive my natural aversion to Leafbois.

I love Babs as a coach so optics aside I'd welcome him with open arms.

Would be fun to see him win a cup in Detroit, go to Toronto and fail, and then come back to Detroit and win his 2nd cup lol.

[gcom007 1,465]

38 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Fair enough. Forgive my natural aversion to Leafbois.

I love Babs as a coach so optics aside I'd welcome him with open arms.

Would be fun to see him win a cup in Detroit, go to Toronto and fail, and then come back to Detroit and win his 2nd cup lol.

That s*** would make my life. That's the rivalry to me at this point: pure pettiness, in the most beautiful of ways.

Edited July 31, 2019 by gcom007

[LeftWinger 4,951]

4 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Does adding Lafreniere solve your guys' issues?

you better get your heart off of him.  Detroit isn't going to get the #1 pick, won't even get 2 or 3.

[kipwinger 8,520]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Fair enough. Forgive my natural aversion to Leafbois.

I love Babs as a coach so optics aside I'd welcome him with open arms.

Would be fun to see him win a cup in Detroit, go to Toronto and fail, and then come back to Detroit and win his 2nd cup lol.

If Babs was available in the 2020 offseason that would mean that he, yet again, failed to makes waves in the playoffs despite having a STACKED team.  This would be about the millionth time that  has happened.  And one would probably then have to conclude that he's actually not that good of a coach after all.  Right?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

If Babs was available in the 2020 offseason that would mean that he, yet again, failed to makes waves in the playoffs despite having a STACKED team.  This would be about the millionth time that  has happened.  And one would probably then have to conclude that he's actually not that good of a coach after all.  Right?

No

[Buppy 1,720]

7 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

...But basically you're okay pushing for a cup when Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi are 27, but if they're 29 it's better to just blow the team up again? Sorry, I think that's just silly willy. How old are these FA's you're planning to add over the next 2 seasons? My guess is they're probably gonna be around 29. What happens when you don't win the cup in 2 seasons or 3? Now you have even more "declining" players. Time to blow it up?

... But at the end of the day I'm not throwing AA, Mantha, and Betuzzi out for draft picks just cause they're 29 and the rebuild wasn't as fast as you hoped. If you don't like that, call it difference in philosophy.

Let's add this to the mix: Yzerman didn't build the Lightning through FA and openly admits he doesn't like FA, preferring to build a team through drafting and trading. So why do you think Yzerman is suddenly going to go FA heavy and floor the gas peddle to get us to cup contention in 2 years?

My point about leaders was I much prefer leaders who've been with a team for a while. Your off hand comment: "plus you're going to have veteran FAs regardless so I don't see why they couldn't provide any leadership." is what I primarily disagree with here. You make it sound like we can chuck in any old FA vet and they will be leaders. I think anyone who's been on a competitive team or in a competitive company, would say that's very naive. Most real leadership is built simply on experience and trust within a group. That's why I much I'd much prefer TEAM veterans to "FA vets".

You're getting awfully strawman-y here. 

I wouldn't call trading three players "blowing up the team" (maybe in the context of the current team, but not in terms of the one we're trying to build), nor am I "throwing away" anything. Calculated trades, with the aim of turning some guys who would be older into guys who would be younger. AA put up 30g and 56p, Mantha had a dominant run at the end of the year and into the WC, Bert finished strong. I'm not suggesting we trade them all for a 4th rounder. I'd expect a very good return. High picks, high-end prospects. 

Obviously there's some risk with even high picks, just like there's some risk of those three players leaving anyway. If you just want to say the one risk is acceptable and the other isn't, I have no problem with that. But don't act like I'm saying trade them just to get rid of them. You even said you'd be willing to trade them for the right package. 

I'm looking at it in terms of a cup window - 5 or 6 years or so - so it's more than just where those guys will be in year 5. It's where would they be in years 5 through 10, relative to what a few kids age 21-26 would be. So it's not some "boo 29-year-olds". It's weighing the relative merits of two options. I'd love to sign good 21yo UFAs, or even good 25yo UFAs, but there aren't any. I'd love to sign a 28yo then immediately flip him for a 21yo, but no one does that. 28+ is the only option. I know they won't likely be vital core players in my cup window, and maybe won't even be around for the whole thing. I would hope by the time their usefulness ends, our younger players will have transitioned from secondary players to leaders to offset that loss. 

And beyond all that is the implications needing 4 more years to build anything would have in regards to what we've already built. The pieces we have already, all our top prospects - several of whom already have NHL experience - given 2 more years of development, AND augmented with some UFAs. But you don't think that team could complete for anything? If our prospects are that slow to develop, or that bad, what is another two years supposed to accomplish? You say you're not building through free agency, so that can't be it. Unless you're expecting Ethan Phillips to be the next Point, or some similar miracle from a future draft, I don't get it. You think you're optimistic, but in regards to what we've already built I don't think you're close enough to optimism to see it through a telescope. 

I'm not going any more "FA heavy" that your suggestion, I'm just doing it earlier, so I'm not sure where that came from.

We would still have leaders who've been with the team. Larkin primarily. Bert has only been on the Wings for 1/2 a season longer than Rasmussen. We'd have other young players with several years of experience. Having Yzerman as a GM I'd think we'd be pretty open to the idea of getting some leadership from young players. Shanahan, Larionov, Fetisov, Murphy, Hull, Rafalski... I feel confident that we could get some valuable leadership from outside the current team as well. Especially considering neither Mantha nor AA are known for any leadership qualities (kind of the opposite in fact), and you've admitted you're not even sure you'd want them at that point, I wouldn't be worried about it and I don't think you are either. This whole angle is pure sophistry.

[LeftWinger 4,951]

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

sophistry

Hey now this is a Blue Collar Hockey Forum, enough with the words that need to be Webstered! (yes, I am bring back the Webster's Dictionary! To hell with Google! )

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

I'm looking at it in terms of a cup window - 5 or 6 years or so - so it's more than just where those guys will be in year 5. It's where would they be in years 5 through 10, relative to what a few kids age 21-26 would be. So it's not some "boo 29-year-olds". It's weighing the relative merits of two options. I'd love to sign good 21yo UFAs, or even good 25yo UFAs, but there aren't any. I'd love to sign a 28yo then immediately flip him for a 21yo, but no one does that. 28+ is the only option. I know they won't likely be vital core players in my cup window, and maybe won't even be around for the whole thing. I would hope by the time their usefulness ends, our younger players will have transitioned from secondary players to leaders to offset that loss. 

If we are comparing this build to our Cup Dyansty build relative to players age and when UFA's started knocking on our door, we still have a 5-10 year window to become that elite destination WITH our current "core."

THEN: Yzerman 31, Shanahan 28, Fedorov 27, Lidstrom 26, when the first Cup was won. ALL of them 5 PLUS years into their careers. Lids and Feds to least with 6, and they all won 2-3 more before they retired.

So with our current core here is where we stand:

(not saying these players will have careers like the ones above, just comparing core ages)

Larkin - 23, AA - 25, Mantha - 25, Hronek - 22, Seider - 18, Zadina - 19, Rasmussen - 19, Cholowski - 20, Bertuzzi - 24

We can still have most if not all of those players in 5 years and they'd still be in their window for a Cup.  But our history has also shown that before 1997, we were making trades, signing players to help lift us to that elite status.  I'm good with a 1-2 year window to let these players establish themselves, but sometime within that time frame or right after, we MUST decide to make a few trades, sign some aging (27-31) UFA's to make this team even that much better.  Ray Sheppard did not win a Cup here, but him signing here and the points he put up most definitely helped make this team a more attractive place for players to come to, plus we dealt him for Larionov. We traded for Coffey, which made us more attractive and even a better team and then traded him for Shanahan.  The bold moves Jimmy D/Murray/Bowman made did it's part.  I want excitement now, but I also don't want to be a splash in the pan.  Signing 31 year old UFA's now, before our core is an established force (whomever the players will be in that core) would be counter active.  Unless you are signing stop-gap players because your current ones stink beyond belief and you want to put some butts in the seats. But we all know, by the time we win a Cup, the likes of Filppula, Howard, Nielsen won't be around. Maybe even Abby and Helm as well. in 5-10 years they will be replaced with someone. hopefully we are relevant enough that their replacements are high end Cup seeking UFA's or via trading prospects/picks for that top end player that everyone is trying to acquire.