Cooler Heads Prevail

Do you know that they were out shot pretty much the whole season in 2012-13 and the end result was losing to strong Cup contenders Boston in the 7th game of their series within minutes of winning the series ? And that they have lost some games this year that their shot totals were far more favourable ( there is no correlation between winning and the shot differential for this team - not sure if you understand what correlation means ). But you know what, find another team to cheer for, I'm sure we can find a team in the NHL that has a positive shot differential that loses more then they win. Cheer for them.

And what I am saying is under Nonis the Leafs have made great moves and improved their team tremendously in terms of current competitiveness and more importantly longer term potential and depth. To claim this team is "terribly run" flies in the face of reality, its delusional. Even BTS, the cynic, is saying he expects them to make the playoffs 3-4 times in 6 years ( including 2012-2013 ). This would be a DRAMATIC improvement on the previous 6 years.

You seem to hang onto any opportunity you can get to criticize Toronto sports teams, whether its warranted or not. This is no team built to succeed short term, we are going to have a winning hockey team more years then not for the next 5 years. Will you go on record to say this is not the case ? Please do. I would like to be able to quote you in 2018 on what you thought about the Leafs roster in 2013. Please fill in the blanks : From 2013-2018, the Leafs will post a winning regular season record __ times in 5 seasons. From 2013-2018, the Leafs will make the playoffs __ times in 5 seasons. Let's quantify your cynacism.

Funny how much of a difference Bolland and Bozak made to the team's results. Don't let reality confuse your theories though, every good fantasy needs a good healthy dose of delusion.

Since Bozak left the lineup the team's offence dropped significantly. I haven't looked into this carefully myself but Bozak's chemistry with his line mates was spoken by numerous analysts as a trade off to him not quite being a real first line center. Your beef is with them not me. His contract is less expensive then most "first line" centers. Bigger picture the Leafs made MANY moves and the grand total of those moves was a much stronger team in 2012 and 2013 then the preceding years. It was a great rebuild, the team is more exciting, its younger, and it wins more. If you want to wallow in negativity and declare this a myth go right ahead that kind of thinking has more likelihood of being supported by the Jays under AA.

Actually, since they brought in some new people, it clearly is a top notch front office. The new players they brought in were great pick ups. And despite some serious injuries, the team wins games. Show me ANY team in the NHL that got better play on resources then the Leafs did bringing in Bolland ( pre-injury ), Raymond, Ranger ( depth ). Now look at some of their org guys that have been filling in or in the AHL, its a pretty good group of back up players. What I'm seeing here is even against overwhelming evidence you'll always go "street" here and fight it like its a brawl. The Jays situation they're an easy mark to criticize them, but the Leafs under Nonis you are fighting a losing battle. It's no contest really.

That's because you are completely delusional; you actually think your opinion ( based on who knows what ) trumps guys who have been in the game for decades. I remember clearly when Clarkson was signed, most applauded his signing. There hasn't been nearly enough hockey to change an opinion, he hasn't played many games at all.

Complete bs. Gotta call it for what it is. Anyone in the league could have signed him and all he got was one year at $3M. That's reality, the market doesn't lie.

Grabovski isn't a superior player. Do you even follow hockey ? He got signed for $3M after lukewarm interest from anybody in the NHL.

I find if kind of funny how sure you are that Clarkson and Bozak are bad contracts. It's truly funny. There hasn't been nearly enough hockey to claim this, and the consensus amongst hockey analysts would range from good contracts to slight overpays. Almost nobody would declare them bad deals at this point. Bozak works well with Kessel. For an example of why this might be important, look at how well the Islanders have played since they shipped out Moulson for Vanek. The best player isn't always the best fit on a team. And Bozak being out of the lineup seems to have had a significant impact on his line mates.

So says you and almost every hockey analyst disagrees with you. And Lou L. is one of the most respected executives in the game and he disagrees with you too. Bozak they needed their biggest weakness was at center. I am reminded about all the s***** pitchers you want the Jays to acquire and Bozak as a #1 center is closer to fulfilling that role effectively ( especially with the chemistry he has with his line mates ) then any of those pitchers would be to being a real #2 starter for the Jays. Again, you are reaching. Declaring these the "worst contracts" is pure hyperbole. When they were signed, the TV crews debated the numbers but most declared Clarkson a great pick up and Bozak slightly expensive but that they needed him.

Clarkson was a key part of a New Jersey team that always outperformed their supposed talent level, and the league definately thinks he's a much better player then Grabovski ( he was signed late in the game for $3M on a one year deal ). New Jersey was quite willing to sign him for the same money, and Edmonton offered more. New Jersey seems to lack offence this year and Toronto had plenty of offence until Bozak/Bolland went down ( and Kadri missed three games ). That suggests Clarkson is more valuable then you think, they added Jagr who is playing well and they still lack offence.

FYI Raycroft was traded well BEFORE the rebuild even started, Grabovski was a move made to free up salary cap. Yes, Bozak and Clarkson were decent signings. I never liked the Kessel trade when it happened it was their one bad move in recent years and even that trade is acknowledged by many to not be so bad anymore. When the trade was made the Leafs expected it was a much lower draft pick, once they wilted that season it was obvious in hindsight the trade could get real bad. However, where they finished in the league that year is also instructive how far they've come from then. Some residual problems like Liles they are living with best they can. Concerning the salary cap, it allowed them to bring in Bolland, Raymond, Clarkson and their new goalie. They all come from winning organizations and with the exception of Clarkson ( so far; I'm not worried ) they've already proven they were good choices. Concerning draft picks, since the debacle of not having any high ones for a while, they've managed to acquire or draft rather well since. Kadri, Gardner, Reilly, Van Reimsdyk ( former #2 pick ) are all part of a great young core for the future. Reimer continues to prove he's a decent goalie ( best save pct in the league prior to today ). Even better, some of their minor league guys and recent lower draft guys are showing potential, the depth of the organization has improved so much in 4 years. The fact we can lose our top two centers and still compete speaks to this. This team is very much built for playoff success and to remain good for several years. This despite having pretty much almost nothing when Burke started to build with and only one season when they had a high draft pick ( which they traded their one bad move ). Edmonton meanwhile built through the draft and remain terrible so far; the luxury of those #1 picks should have reaped rewards by now. Some veteran teams are starting to wilt under the cap while their core gets older. We'll see the next few years how they make out. They have already done far better both this season and last then numerous years prior to 2012. This is a team that missed the playoffs numerous times, and to register two seasons in a row would be major progress. Make a string of playoff appearances the evidence will be overwhelming they made great moves the last few years. But you know, the fact you think Clarkson and Bozak were bad signings suggest you are grasping for something and that's pretty thin. You want to criticize the Kessel move I won't disagree that Burke made a mistake but its not turned out to be horrible. Boston got fed up with Seguin already, and I don't see Dallas doing tremendously well this season.

It is very clear you know very little about hockey but think you do. Why does that not surprise me ? It has become very clear you are mostly full of s***, probably with respect to baseball as well ( carefully shrouded with the lastest saber stats to try to sound intelligent ).

I've decided to state the obvious here, this board has a few problem childs ( actually some are literally children ) and they dominate the forum content and more importantly the mood here. I had thought that the bad season the Jays had contributed somewhat to this, but I happened upon the Leafs thread today. The same negativity all over it from many of the same people. Here's the thing. The Leafs have been highly successful rebuilding their team that was arguably one of the least talented and veteran teams 4 years ago. Everything that this board supposably relishes ( good use of draft picks, more youthful team, good fit acquisitions, acquiring players from winning programs ) has been successfully implemented by the hockey team. Its an extremely well put together team, built from almost nothing not long ago. I was shocked that most of the crew here couldn't see this. Which suggests to me that negativity as a sport is the theme on this site. The fact the Jays had a bad year just makes it easier to spew the venom. It is with great irony that some of the kids on here launched into the usual insults and acting smart when they clearly waded into topics they know almost nothing at all about. It illustrates that most of their "knowledge" is extremely superficial in nature and lacks a depth of analysis that anyone who has experience in a related field can recognize almost immediately. The jokes on them really, and long term this site will always be nothing much of anything as long as they have a prominant ( dominant ? ) voice on here.

Uh, this is too funny. The Leafs rebuild was masterful, this is nothing to do with being a "homer". I can illustrate this EASILY. But why bother, if some of you kids can't understand something that is so blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of objectivity, it's not worth it. Continue to suffer from your delusions. I'm not sure why you think criticizing local sports teams is a sport but its pretty painful when you move in on a growing success story and try to apply the same negative attacks in a place it doesn't belong. However, the legend of the kids on this forum and their negativity is certainly growing.

Do I really need to go over the moves one by one for your petty little mind to understand what a great job the Leafs have done ? Are you serious ? Do some of you really believe otherwise ? Do tell me. I'm all ears what some of you who simply bring negativity to Toronto sports have to say about the Leafs.

Pretty much every move the Leafs made the last 4 years has been golden. This kind of stupid post confirms my feeling that many of your posts reflect more on a negative attitude about Toronto sports teams then anything to do with real analysis. Serioiusly, the Leafs had a god awful roster 4 years ago. They've done one of the best rebuilds in recent memory in sport, have a great young core and almost every new pickup was well thought out. All the things you keep blabbering on about on the baseball forum but you can't recognize it in the local hockey team. Please.

I have a feeling if they sign him he'll be one of our worst signings and it will be painfully obvious in two years he was the wrong guy for our club at that kind of money. This is one of those moments when settling for second best simply to maintain an illusion of competitiveness isn't the right move. If the market won't provide a quality starter then improve elsewhere and just go with our guys.

I've seen a lot of National League starter's with similar history to him blow up in the American League, that is why I'm not too keen on him. I don't see him as being much of an upgrade still; he's not going to change the Jays outlook much. My original premise way back was they need EITHER a quality starter or forget it just beef up the offence to a top three and pray some of our big maybe pitchers have nice seasons. This Cub pitcher doesn't fit either strategy. Its like settling for something that's guaranteed to be a mediocre .500 team going nowhere. Of course, that's not the case if we aren't giving up anything of great value back. Would it blow your mind if either Rogers or Happ was better then this guy next season ? And one further point, Stroman is the kind of guy who might make a major league impact in 2014. Other teams have had guys like him do so, it might be our turn. To give up Stroman at this point when we lack quality starters would be lunacy for the Jays.

Even though I'm not overly thrilled with Samardzija as a target if they are willing to trade him fairly cheap ( eg for some of our lesser prospects ) I wouldn't mind it. Cubs might take a flyer on Gose, don't know what they think about our other expendable parts ( eg JPA, some middle relievers, lesser prospects ). My point is I don't think Samardzija is enough of an upgrade on Rogers, Happ, Stroman etc etc to warrant weakening our main assets in any way to get him. If that means I'm undervaluing him so be it, the Jays ultimately make that call. And I'm even more nervous about them spending a fair bit of money on Nolasco, which could mean I'd warm up more to getting this guy instead. Bottom line I'm not sure bringing in lesser starters and hoping they'll improve our team seems off base to me ( we have plenty of #3-#5 type pitchers ). Hanigan I think is being overvalued on this forum, the Reds don't want him and there is no shortage of catchers in the league. Again, if he's available fairly cheap I'd consider him, especially if we can unload a contract. Would Santos be enough and what are the Reds needing ? I don't disagree that getting a fairly modest catcher is the right move though if we spend our money elsewhere. Not sure where the trading synergies are here unless the market value of these guys is limited.

I have no problem noting that when I was shooting the s*** I forgot that Hanigan is on the Reds and that the Cubs don't need a DH.

Dickey was the Cy Young winner. Try to get some perspective.

There is no way in hell we are trading one of our premium pitching prospects for a mediocre starter from the National League.

In terms of franchise value, Forbes has Tampa Bay dead last. They also have a habit of never winning a World Series. I guess some on here just like having a decent team on the field that plays to empty crowds and is never quite good enough to win it all. Jays have always had decent attendance but in the 1980s they had the same habit of being close but never winning the Series. Only by spending on a few quality free agents and trading Kent ( for example ) did they break through. Most of the Jays moves in the years immediately preceding the World Series wins would have been wildly panned on here as bad moves ( taking on "declining" veterans, trading away youth ).