TurdBurglar

While I get what you're saying, if you replace president and GM now, you're back to holding onto this roster for another year before potential changes while the new president and GM do their evaluation on the roster. At least this season Marner and Tavares are under contract. Marner will want more money and that may price Tavares out of resigning if they do want him back. Toronto's window is closing, they're late into their window. Their core players are already expensive, and not taking team discount, which would of helped massively to shape an entire roster. Delaying this another year could very well push them out of contention, and into the just playing in the playoff phase before a rebuild happens again.

Sounds like he's not going anywhere. One analyst said it's going to be hard for there to be management changes when it's coming off the back of a the first season with a new GM. A new GM wouldn't blow up a team and move core contracts until they've fully evaluated it. That small piece may be Shanahan's saving grace. If that is true, I'd expect it's a fairly deep cup run next season or they will clean house. Also the "tone" is there's no player safe in Toronto right now.

Isn't he the frontrunner for Ottawa?

I’ve stumbled across unconfirmed rumours that Shanahan could be next and it may be a whole management purge. Sounds a bit far fetched for a whole management purge, but it’s hard to say with Toronto.

Yes and no. A big indication this was just an off year is his shooting % plummeted from over 12 to just over 6. Typically, if it were just regression, it would taper off by a percent or 2 a year. I'll use a Cheechoo as an example, as he's well know as a guy who went from good to AHL quickly. He dropped from 17% to 4% over 5 seasons, usually averaging a 20% drop a season. Anderson just dropped about 50%. it's far more common for him to rebound from this than to stay at this. Anything can happen though, as we don't know what the real reason is that caused it.

Anderson's 3 years left doesn't make for a wise risk on a contending team. If it were 1 year, maybe, but the length and risk makes his only option a team like Montreal. Without sweeting the deal, even other rebuilding teams would stay away from him. He will be on the roster to start the season. His only chance of a trade is if his performance gets a lot better. This is also a case where it rests solely on his shoulders. MSL gave him way more chances than he deserved to be in productive positions, and he just didn't. I will give him credit, it wasn't from lack of effort.

Not sure how many people watch or like Steve Dangle, but he has me pegged. I timestamped the start, it's you only need to watch it for about a minute.

So my TSN app didn’t deceive me. Dreams do come true.

I've been known to be wrong, but I think the preference would be to move a deep LD pool over a thin RD pool. I would pump the brakes on expecting Hutson in the NHL next year. It'll be his first season out of university, so no professional hockey experience. I also know some will point to Caufield did it with nearly no AHL tenure, but forward, especially wing, is the easiest to transition to. Guhle also did it with no real AHL tenure as well, but he came from the WHL, which is regarded as a higher level of competition than the NCAA. Defensemen take longer to season, especially if they've never played professionally. It's why I said earlier Hutson and Reinbacher will take at a year or 2 to be NHL regulars.

Matheson, Guhle, Harris, and Xhekaj on the left. Savard and Kovacevic on the right. All NHL ready. Hughes made a point of saying he doesn't want to block the transition to the NHL for the other defensemen. There's no guarantee Savard gets traded in the off-season or Hutson/Reinbacher will be on the NHL roster next season, fairly unlikely in reality. Neither Reinbacher or Hutson will be a 7th defenseman because AHL play time is better than sitting in a press box. There's definitely a move or 2 to be made to get Struble and Barron some more NHL ice-time. Realistically for Hutson or Reinbacher it's a year or 2 away, but Barron is definitely a player that's in that weird spot where AHL ice-time probably won't really benefit him much anymore so he would need more NHL ice-time and Struble showed flashes of that as well. Sure injuries help with NHL ice-time, but you can't depend on injuries to get young players ice-time.

Toronto is doing a great job of clogging the middle of the ice while pressuring the puck carrier. The league is really against Toronto. Two icing in a row against the Leafs and there's a lengthy time check after the second one, giving the same Leafs group on the ice a nice break. Defeating the whole purpose of no TV timeouts or line changes on icings...

I missed the second period and saw Pastrnak got called 8 minutes for high sticking? How does that even happen? Edit: Turns out it was just a double minor, but TSN has it wrong on their website.

PK's reputation is largely based on rumors. A player as good as he was raises questions to why he was traded twice, once in his prime. This is extremely rare, and cases where it did happen, it came out after there were bigger off-ice issues. It would lend credibility to the rumors of how PK was behind the scenes. To say it was all true or all wrong would be equally as wrong. I would imagine it was somewhere in between. PK's problem was his attitude and interactions with teammates. Kane's problems stemmed from his own behavior, most of which weren't hockey-related.

There would a cost attached to LA retaining $2m for more 7 years, even if Anderson only has 3 more years left. The shorter term wouldn't make up for the skill difference and retention alone. You'd also have to believe there's no way LA sells PLD low after paying so much for him just last off-season. Anderson's value is at it's lowest point now, after last season.

Thanks for bringing this up. It prompted me to look into it. While it's hard to find a lot of studies that actually did the math, and nearly 100% of top-5 picks played 100+ games, then dramatically drops off after that. Two different studies (from 1988-1997 and another from 2000-2009) Both had 100% of top 5 picks playing 100+ game. Hence why I said nearly 100%, as I haven't found any study doing something like the last 40 years combined. So both picks 3 and 5 should theoretically both provide long-term NHLers, the quality is the questionable part. https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/ Also found this that is from 1963-2023, showing the top 5 picks on average play over 600 games per pick position. https://morehockeystats.com/drafts/pickstats