Further to: Leafs expectations for 2010-11
by Hawerchuk on Aug 24, 2010 9:01 AM EDT
Email
PrintYesterday's survey results are in, and the Leafs' mean projection is 82.6 points. That's not an unsubstantial improvement - Toronto finished with 74 points this year, so our wise crowds expect a four-win gain. Let's put that in a table:
| Points% | |
| 2009-10 | 0.451 |
| Final 69 Games | 0.486 |
| 2010-11 Projection | 0.504 |
If we ignore Toronto's brutal 13-game streak to start the season - and well we should - they were on a 79-point pace. Now the consensus is that they're an 82-83-point team?! That doesn't sound like much of an improvement. Well, I wrote about this last year. Essentially, teams that get off to very bad starts are actually a lot better than they appear. But that poor play is already banked in everyone's mind. So future expectations are based on the poor full-season record instead of the team's apparent true talent level. If Toronto was going to improve on their 79-point pace by nine points, they'd be on the playoff bubble; instead people think they're going to finish 12th or 13th.
Strange, isn't it? Toronto had a bad 13 games while Phil Kessel was hurt and Vesa Toskala was destroying his career, and the outcome is that the Leafs face lower expectations a season later.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Aug 24, 2010 12:38 PM EDT reply actions
;) I’m nowhere near 44 years old, nor did I expect the cup for more than maybe 2,3 of the seasons I’ve been a Leafs fan.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Aug 24, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That is a pretty fantastic picture of Vesa, though.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 24, 2010 1:51 PM EDT reply actions
It was really only 8 games that affected their point total
While they were 1-4 in regulation during games 9-13, those games didn’t really affect their season-ending point total as they managed to gain 6 points during those 5 games.
So, for their last 74 games, the Leafs point % was .493 I believe (73 points in 74 games). That’s an 80.9 point season for a full 82 games, thus only a point or so improvement is being suggested.
That’s really where my vote came down to. This Leafs team doesn’t look any better (or worse) on the whole than any of the previous 3 teams. Barring an unexpectedly poor performance (like Toskala last year) or a similarly unexpected heroic performance (Kadri potting 35 goals), I expect this Leafs team to continue the history of the last 3 seasons and play like a low-80s for points quality team.
So that probably puts the Bruins drafting right around 7th or 8th overall.
More specifically, it doesn’t suggest the public has much respect for Burke and Wilson’s abilities to improve this team.
I don’t know that I’d extrapolate that far. I think Burke and Wilson have improved the team by moving out veterans who were underperforming. These vets, however, have been replaced by unproven youth and it’s hard to gauge exactly where the youth can take the Leafs, so low expectations seem reasonable.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Aug 24, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
My issue with Burke’s youth movement is that hardly any of his young players are under their entry level contract anymore. That’s really where the value of youth comes in – under an entry level contract, high impact young players give you more bang for your salary cap dollars than older players, on a market value contract do (i.e. Chicago 09-10 versus Chicago 10-11).
Once a player’s cap hit is at market value, what does it matter if he’s young or old?
And a lot of their young players are off their ELCs (or soon will be): Kessel, Versteeg, Kulemin, Caputi, Bozak, Phaneuf, Schenn, Gunarson, and Gustavsson come to mind as those at market value or in the last year of their ELC. Some will be RFAs and still able to get some discount, but impact RFAs still don’t get the same level of discount that an ELC does.
ELC's are handy, it's true.
The thing is, this Toronto team definitely won’t be ready to compete for a Cup for at least another year or two, at which point, they’ll have Kadri and other new faces to play on ELC deals. Although signing a bunch of RFA’s next season to new contracts may be costly, no team to win the Cup since the lockout has done so with more than 4 players on ELC’s – and it’s not inconceivable that the Leafs find a couple other players other than Kadri to outperform their rookie contracts. Hey, Detroit won the Cup with only 2.
Furthermore, every team to win the Cup post-lockout has also depended on a number of veteran players to outperform their deals as well. Andy McDonald, for example, put up more points for the Ducks in ‘07 than any of Penner, Getzlaf, or Perry. Also, Beauchemin played the most minutes per game of any defenceman for them in the playoffs (yes, even more than Pronger or Neids), and he was paid a whopping $1.6M. Heck, even Selanne, the team’s regular season points leader was only paid $3.75M to put up 90+ points.
So for now, we’ll wait to see what the Cap landscape is in a coupe years, and not get too hung up on ELC’s.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
The first sentence was key and you seem to have missed it ...
Two key quotes from my initial post:
My issue with Burke’s youth movement is that hardly any of his young players are under their entry level contract anymore.
Once a player’s cap hit is at market value, what does it matter if he’s young or old?
Somehow you guys are interpreting this as the only thing that matters is an ELC – when in fact, what I’m doing is questioning the value of youth.
I’ll repeat, but rephrase, my original question.
Why does it matter if the Leafs have young players? How does that help them?
Burke’s covered this, actually. He’s talked about how young players don’t necesserily realize they’re supposed to be bad, and can often outperform after that.
Also the quesiton of a player’s cap being “market value” is a bit of a tricky one. If a player is, say, 23 years old and scored 40 points and then signs a $3 mill contract, that’s pretty close to market value. But what if while being made $3 mill he scores 80 points? Isn’t that an underpayment? I guess what I’m saying is that with young players, there is a much higher chance of outperforming their contract. Now, young players like Phaneuf are overpaid and will continue to be overpaid, but at least, unlike an overpaid veteran, they are more likely to improve their play during the course of their contract rather than see their play deteriorate.
Does that help?
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Aug 25, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
If a player is, say, 23 years old and scored 40 points and then signs a $3 mill contract, that’s pretty close to market value. But what if while being made $3 mill he scores 80 points? Isn’t that an underpayment?
Yes I would consider that an underpayment. But I think you are just as likely to get older veterans to sign for under market value as young players. No data to back that up, but to your point, it’s a surprise when younger players outperform contracts, but veterans are occasionally willing to sign under market contracts from the get go. Not always, but it appears to happen more frequently than it does for young players.
Overall, I may have jumped to conclusions on your initial post, but when people mention the Leafs and their youth, Phaneuf and Kessel tend to be brought up as two key examples of that youth. In both those cases, I think the Leafs were better off not acquiring those players and keeping the assets they surrendered. So when I hear talk of youth and the Leafs, the “at what cost” and “for what benefit” questions pop up in my mind.
No data to back that up, but to your point, it’s a surprise when younger players outperform contracts, but veterans are occasionally willing to sign under market contracts from the get go. Not always, but it appears to happen more frequently than it does for young players.
See I’m just not going to agree with you here unless there’s data. I can’t think of older players outperforming their contracts beyond a Selanne, really.
When I talk about youth I talk about Schenn, Bozak, Kadri, Mueller, D’Amigo etc. Kessel and Phaneuf are the veterans and leaders of this team.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Aug 25, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Karina means that if you sign say a 23 year old at his current market value he may well play better in the future (read: get better) and thus outperform his contract.
by red army line on Aug 26, 2010 6:45 AM EDT up reply actions
See all the players whose contracts are being investigated by the NHL for contravening the cap – seems they’re all veterans.
That’s paying the guy his market value now but lowering the cap hit by tacking on extra low salary years. There’s a bit of a distinction.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I have more faith in agents and GMs
Maybe it’s my finance background, but I generally assume efficient markets until proven otherwise.
I would expect agents to factor in expected improvements of their players into negotiations and for GMs to outbid for free agents when their counterparts are unwilling to pay for expected improvements. The only time that I would see young players outperforming their contracts would be for unexpected improvements. This likely would happen with a similar frequency as veteran players unexpectedly not declining.
I thought it was generally accepted that you paid more for UFAs than RFAs. I think Gabe even has it down to an average dollar per win figure, which I can’t recall off the top of my head but am sure I could find in the archive of this site if I looked for 30 seconds.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 27, 2010 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Chicago
had Toews and Kane… beyond that they had no other significant contributors on ELCs.
Are you seriously arguing the Leafs will suffer because of a lack of ELCs when they have Schenn, Gunnarsson, Bozak, Caputi, and possibly Kadri, all in the lineup next year on ELCs?
5 is more than 2 last I checked… if on the other hand you’re arguing that the ABILITIES of the Leafs ELC players isn’t high enough to get them past 82.6 points, then that’s a fair point (as far as opinions go). In that case, you’re basically bashing the Leafs for not having enough top 3 draft picks in the past few years. If that’s your point, then most teams suck for not doing the same.
The out-performing ELC argument is a bit over-used at times. The number of players having a significant NHL impact by outperforming their ELC deals is amazingly small. I don’t think this is a significant reason to imply the Leafs will fail to meet expectations in the near future.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 25, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
also
one could argue that whether or not a deal is ELC is irrelevant if the money is low based on potential returns. Gustavsson’s deal might as well be an ELC at the number it’s at now. The Leafs have 4 forwards making $3 million or more next season … and one of those is on his ELC (Bozak actually makes $2,850,000 but if he gets bonus money that climbs up to $3,725,000). That means currently the Leafs could have between 9 and 12 players up front who wouldn’t have to produce that much to outperform their contracts offensively.
From a point perspective, any player that’s picking up roughly a point for every $50,000 in salary or less is doing a very solid job of production (i.e. outperforming their contract). Looking at the Leafs roster for this coming season, that would require the following output from the Leaf forwards:
Kessel – 108+ pts
Versteeg – 62+ points
Bozak – 18+ points (for salary), 75+ points (for cap hit)
Armstrong – 60+ points
Kulemin – 47+ points
Grabovski – 58+ points
Orr – 20+ points
Caputi – 12+ points (for salary), 17+ points (for cap hit)
J. Mitchell – 15+ points
Sjostrom – 15+ points
Brown – 11+ points
Kadri – 18+ points (for salary), 34+ points (for cap hit)
Mueller – 18+ points (for salary), 22+ points (for cap hit)
D’Amigo – 18+ points (for salary), 22+ points (for cap hit)
Obviously not every forward on this list will outperform his cap hit, (I gave the salary performance required if one excludes bonuses… but for some of those players the bonuses were signing bonuses that were handed out already – i.e. Bozak).
That being said, I think it quite possible, or even likely, that the likes of Caputi, Mitchell, Brown, Kadri, Mueller, or D’Amigo all outperform their contracts either this year or in the coming seasons (in the case of the last 3 there’s at least 1 or 2 years remaining on their contracts).
If Kadri isn’t putting up well over 34 points within 3 years, then yes the Leafs have screwed up. If D’Amigo or Mueller can’t top 22 points in the next two years, then again, they’ve made mistakes. If Caputi can’t break the 17 point plateau this year, then yeah, he’s not doing very well in his development.
I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense to argue that the Leafs are hamstrung by a lack of ELC deals.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 25, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Bozak
is making $3.725 mill as a result of a signing bonus… ignore what i said in the first set of brackets…
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 25, 2010 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not a signing bonus
Bozak can make up to $3.725 in performance bonuses – signing bonuses aren’t allowed in the NHL.
No, they are. Tomas Fleischmann just got one.
by red army line on Aug 26, 2010 6:46 AM EDT up reply actions
I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense to argue that the Leafs are hamstrung by a lack of ELC deals.
I never said they were. I said the Leafs youth would quickly be done with their ELCs – at which point, their value as young players disappears. Once they’re off their ELCs, their value, just like old players, is determined by whether or not they are signed to a contract they are likely to outperform.
I’d think their value as players is dictated by their abilities and projected ceiling, not the contract they’re under.
This is my signature.
by blurr1974 on Aug 26, 2010 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
In salary cap (or constrained) world, I disagree. Value per dollar spent is the most important attribute for a player in my mind.
Depends. Is this Patrick Kaleta or a top-line forward? Kaleta is great value for his contract last time I checked because he draws so many penalties, but your forward, even if at market value, fills a big hole (where will the offense come from?) so you don’t risk overpaying.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
had Toews and Kane… beyond that they had no other significant contributors on ELCs.
So, beyond the guys who currently cost $6.3 MM against the cap each, but cost ~$.9 MM last year (without looking up bonuses, which I know do hit the cap), they had nothing. In other words, they had an additional $10 MM in cap space thanks to those two players being under their ELC.
But the point remains, the following is not at all accurate of my position:
Are you seriously arguing the Leafs will suffer because of a lack of ELCs when they have Schenn, Gunnarsson, Bozak, Caputi, and possibly Kadri, all in the lineup next year on ELCs?
What I am arguing is that who cares if you have youth – youth is only valuable insofar as someone is under their entry level contract. After that, what matters is whether they’re signed to a good-value contract, not their age.
I was responding to the claim that the Leafs have young players. My statement was essentially, so what?
But if you are evaluating the talent on a team and the question is “do they have enough”, and your answer is “meh”…. would you rather this describe a veteran laden team or a youth laden one?
Most of us would rather the youth one, because the youth MIGHT get significantly better, while the veterans are very unliekly to.
But if you are evaluating the talent on a team and the question is "do they have enough", and your answer is "meh"…. would you rather this describe a veteran laden team or a youth laden one?
I think that’s like saying if a 5’2", 300 pound woman is attracted to you, would you rather she have blue eyes or brown?
Yeah, I like blue eyes, but so what? The package is already pretty bad.
If the talent is “meh” I don’t really care how old it is because I likely have to replace all that “meh” talent.
If the talent is good, I likely don’t care about the age because my team is good.
by Bourque77 on Aug 26, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, it’s not. More like: would you prefer the woman is trying to go on a diet or that she had given up long ago?
Moreover, the “meh” youngsters come at RFA value.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I take it you mean best forward who’s miles behind Phil Kessel (also, Nik Hagman was pretty good).
Also, if Poni had stayed with the Leafs he quite probably would have been offered a better deal than the one he got (I bet even if he put up the same numbers). Sucking hard with Pittsburgh probably cost him 1mil or so, and probably a few years of contract.
Your comments on this post got me thinking … who do you consider to be the best / worst GMs in the game?
I enjoy reading your analyses and would be interested in seeing which teams seem to be employing strategies you’d agree with.
From comments I’ve read of yours this offseason, it seems that Yzerman would be high on your list even with his brief tenure and Burke would be pretty low. Just wondering who else may make those lists and even if that’s an accurate assumption on my part.
I only have insight into a very small part of team operations. But from the outside, there are a lot of guys in the West who know their stuff – Van, SJ, LAK, Det, Chi, Nsh. Yzerman looks good. Most guys know what they’re doing and could win a cup if everything broke right. There aren’t more than a handful of GMs who don’t know their stuff.
Burke built one hell of a team in Anaheim. He fully understood who could play defense and he and Wilson see eye-to-eye on giving their offensive forwards soft opposition and o-zone faceoffs. I personally think power-vs-power is more likely to work out in your favor, but we don’t have enough data on that.
This is a subject that fascinates me (power v. power, or checking line). I suspect you’re right that it’s best if you can have your top line dominate the opposition’s top line. But from a team building perspective, I would imagine the studs necessary to make that strategy work are pretty hard to come by. Effective checking line forwards, on the other hand, can be had off the scrap heap pretty much every summer.
I did a post at PPP recently suggesting that based on the Ducks’ “checking line” model from ‘06-’07, Burke was more likely to pursue that in Toronto (and indeed he seems to be doing so with the Armstrong signing, my misgivings as to whether C. Armstrong = R. Niedermayer aside).
My question is, do you agree that outside of lucking into a couple of horses to play power v. power, the most realistic team-building model is the “Burke” model? I can’t see the Leafs acquiring a Ovechkin/Crosby/Nash/Richards type, but I can see them having a Selanne-McDonald-Kunitz line (Kessel-Bozak-Kulemin).
by The '67 Sound on Aug 26, 2010 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
burke also walked into two of the best defensemen of our generation in anaheim, one basically by default, and the other was pretty darn close to default. i don’t think it’s that easy.
Clearly. I’m not suggesting it is. Just interested in the two different models.
Having two Hall of Fame defenders and a goalie playing at a Hall of Fame level was pretty clearly more important to the Ducks than their forward configuration.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 27, 2010 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions
For the record, I voted for 90-94 points.
It might be overly optimistic, but sue me. Post-Phaneuf trade, the Leafs were on pace to be a playoff team. Admittedly, the sample size is too small to really be sure of anything much more than showing that it’s not impossible the Leafs make the playoffs, but during this period, their special teams were so bad that the term “regression to the mean” brought smiles to the faces of most Leaf fans. Throw in Versteeg and Armstrong, who should provide a modest upgrade in the post-Phaneuf trade offence, and things begin to look OK.
I’d also like to think that a few of those kids will have improved. Read not too long ago that Luke Schenn has been adding muscle, and is up to 235 lbs? Haven’t seen him skate yet, but if he’s still mobile, that’s a scary d-man.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
