x 2.

I said at the beginning of the season it was a huge gamble for Burke to bank on good goaltending between your current tandem. Reimer was simply too unproven. What surprises me is that after seeing how badly you needed goaltending all season, he never went out and got one.

A smart GM would keep Reimer around (might be really good down the road) and bring in an aging #1 (costs less than a young one) to keep you competitive while Reimer works through his growing pains. Almost all goalies seem to go through them and having a vet to teach him how to battle through would be helpful as well.

Reimer still may be a #1 down the road but let him have 2-3 years in a back up role and get comfortable with his consistency before using him as a 1A/1B.


Like the poster said, some things went wrong this season but a lot went right too. At the end of the day it's hard to blame any one thing on the poor season.

Burke needs to start being held accountable for the gambles he takes building a team though. Sure he has won some trades but also lost on others. One thing is for sure though, if you take a look at the ages of the Leaf's best players you can conclude that Burke has given you a relatively small window to win. When your best players are 24-28 you should be in win mode now because 3 years down the road those players will be past prime.

This is how old your top 10 scorers from this year will be by the time playoffs come around next year.

Kessel- 25
Lupul-29
Grabs-29
Bozak-27
Phaneuf-27
Macarthur- 27
Connolly-31
Kulemin- 26
Gardiner-22
Liles-32

With the exception of Gardiner, all of those players are either in their prime or towards the end of it.

So what happens in 2-3 years even if Burke builds the Leafs into a contender? By then your best players will be 30ish and likely past their prime.

And no offence, but other than Kadri there isn't a lot of hope for quality replacements in the top 6. Maybe on the 2nd line but in the next 2/3 years I wouldn't count on more than a prospect or two to have blossomed into a 50+ point player.

Many Leaf fans don't realize it yet but Burke has put the Leafs in a tougher position than most realize. Will they be a playoff team in the next 2-3 years? Likely. But I don't think Burke has a plan to get you past a fringe playoff team and into that "scary good" category that most cup winners fall into.
- gretzky

You're right. Teams never win the cup with players in their 30s.

You're right. Teams never win the cup with players in their 30s.
- p_zub

The bigger problem for teams looking 2 or 3 years out is not players 27 or 28. It's when key parts of the roster are into their 30s. 32, 33. These guys will be well into decline, even ready to retire, 2 or 3 years out.

Players in their early 30s may be beginning to slip a little, but I'd say you need a couple of those guys around if you're taking a run. You can't take a group of 24 year olds on a cup run.

Well, let's see....

- 4 young, good NHL caliber D on the roster under the age of 25. 2 under the age of 22. The Habs have 1 under 25. 0 under 22.
- A 24 year old winger in the top 5 in goals in the league.
- 2 players with more than a point per game on the roster. Neither past the prime of their career. The Habs haven't had ANY, in years.
- An AHL team near the top of the league, with several prospects that could break into the NHL in the near future. At least 3 forwards and 2 D that stand a pretty strong shot in the near future. I don't think there is a single player on the basement Bulldogs roster that is likely to break onto an NHL roster in the near future. Man, they've already pushed a couple of guys from that roster to the NHL that have no business being in the NHL in the first place. It's funny.... The Leafs may get some players from their AHL roster next year.... If all goes well, the Bulldogs should get some players from the Habs roster. LOL.
- A Dman that finished in the top 5 in scoring in the OHL last year. Also a strong 2 way player. Top dman on the OHL winning team. played in 3 memorial cups, member of one Mem cup winning team.
- another Dman that was actually number one Dman on his Mem Cup participating team.
- another forward that finished in the top 20 in WHL scoring

Now, since you named one PLAYER, the above list has well over 10, closer to 15.

Now, I'm sure you're going to look at these, and say "You're kidding, right, who cares about a guy like Gardiner, he's no big deal". But you see, that's what came to mind when you mentioned Price. In his 4 full seasons as starter, he's cracked the top 10 in sv% ONCE, and was only 7th. Basically, if you're going to fit him in somewhere in some sort of a ranking, you're talking somewhere in the 15th range. And while that's respectable, it's nothing to write home about. So when you come on here, and say "yeah, but one thing the Leafs don't have is Carey Price", my reaction is "Who gives a shyt". In that sentence, if you were to replace Carey Price with, say, Henrik Lundvist, THEN I might actually say, you're right. But it's just an average starting goalie, that Habs fans have been hyping up and saying "he's gonna be the best, ONE DAY", for a few years now. He's almost 25 now. the Habs kept the wrong goalie. Halak is better, and they got crap for him. I don't care about Carey Price.

The reality is, the Habs roster is in shambles. It's full of overpaid not very good veterans. Their farm is in shambles. Their prospects are in shambles. The entire organization, from top to bottom, is junk right now. And I've been telling you this was coming for two years now. And the best you can come up with is "but one thing you don't have is Carey Price". Really????? Wow.
- prock

Still trying to figure out if you believe this crap

You're right. Teams never win the cup with players in their 30s.
- p_zub

Well if the same team can't win it in their 20's......


It's not looking promising.

Still trying to figure out if you believe this crap

- jordan456789

You honestly can't see how completely screwed the Habs are right now?

For a while it was the Flames. But the Habs take the cake now. What a total mess. Terrible roster. No farm (although sending guys like Leblanc back where he belongs should help). One decent prospect. Hell, even the management team is brutal.

Is there a single area of the organization you actually think is in good shape?

You honestly can't see how completely screwed the Habs are right now?

For a while it was the Flames. But the Habs take the cake now. What a total mess. Terrible roster. No farm (although sending guys like Leblanc back where he belongs should help). One decent prospect. Hell, even the management team is brutal.

Is there a single area of the organization you actually think is in good shape?
- prock

Meh, you thought Columbus was on their way to success, so you have to excuse anyone for treating your opinions with skepticism. Habs have some issues, you don't compete for 29th and not have holes. Lets wait and see if they go 7 years straight out of the POs or set a lost games straight at home record...or at the least cough up a comfortable PO bound slot in Feb before we judge them as complete and total failures. I would think the first two should mark a current lineup as failures but lets just wait and see.

I was commenting on how the leafs are not in as good of a position that people think. Habs core is in the same position but the one thing the habs have over the leafs is Price.
- jordan456789

They're not in the same position. The Habs have a lot of older, expensive forwards they're going to have to deal with.

Meh, you thought Columbus was on their way to success, so you have to excuse anyone for treating your opinions with skepticism. Habs have some issues, you don't compete for 29th and not have holes. Lets wait and see if they go 7 years straight out of the POs or set a lost games straight at home record...or at the least cough up a comfortable PO bound slot in Feb before we judge them as complete and total failures. I would think the first two should mark a current lineup as failures but lets just wait and see.
- Pie

Columbus??? Are you thinking of LA?

Columbus??? Are you thinking of LA?
- prock

Nope.

Nope.
- Pie

Okay. I don't particularly remember what youee referring to. I don't recall thinking columbus would be a top team. I figured they would improve with Carter. Finally a centre for Nash. But top team?

Okay. I don't particularly remember what youee referring to. I don't recall thinking columbus would be a top team. I figured they would improve with Carter. Finally a centre for Nash. But top team?
- prock

"on their way to success".

"on their way to success".
- Pie

Do you have a link or something?

Do you have a link or something?
- prock

The (frank)? suddenly I'm doppleganger? Who gives a poop? You talked Howson up, he sucks balls, you were wrong yadda yadda. spin spin link?

The (frank)? suddenly I'm doppleganger? Who gives a poop? You talked Howson up, he sucks balls, you were wrong yadda yadda. spin spin link?
- Pie

I honestly think you're confusing me with someone else. The only reason I asked about the link is you seemed to be coming up with what sounds like some pretty precise quotes. Good to hear you're not a weirdo like dopps.

I honestly think you're confusing me with someone else. The only reason I asked about the link is you seemed to be coming up with what sounds like some pretty precise quotes. Good to hear you're not a weirdo like dopps.
- prock

I made no quotes never mind precise, mere generalities or tones if you will of your posts. I stated that you supported Howson and his strategy. You admitted that you thought Carter would work out better than he did...so its not unlikely that you posted that you thought Columbus would do better than they did.

I made no quotes never mind precise, mere generalities or tones if you will of your posts. I stated that you supported Howson and his strategy. You admitted that you thought Carter would work out better than he did...so its not unlikely that you posted that you thought Columbus would do better than they did.
- Pie

So you made no quotes, yet, quoted what you wrote? You know quoting something like you did indicates a direct quote, right?

I definitely did figure Carter would help the team. But you make it sound like I thought they were going to be contenders or something. Totally not the case. The team I've been expecting to break out and go deep is LA. I can't figure them out. They're a stacked team, and have been for a couple of years now. They just can't get it together.

So you made no quotes, yet, quoted what you wrote? You know quoting something like you did indicates a direct quote, right?

I definitely did figure Carter would help the team. But you make it sound like I thought they were going to be contenders or something. Totally not the case. The team I've been expecting to break out and go deep is LA. I can't figure them out. They're a stacked team, and have been for a couple of years now. They just can't get it together.
- prock

Dance monkey boy dance

Dance monkey boy dance
- Pie

No dancing. I think you're misconstruing something I've said. I'd love to see what you're twisting into "they're going to win the cup this year".

No dancing. I think you're misconstruing something I've said. I'd love to see what you're twisting into "they're going to win the cup this year".
- prock

Couldn't agree more Cliff

You're right. Teams never win the cup with players in their 30s.
- p_zub

The average age of the leafs' players was 31, when they last won the Cup, the oldest average age ever I believe.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen written on this site. It's right up there with most of your posts.

Why don't you go back and think through it for a little while. So, the oldest players on the team are 27 or 28, and would be in their early thirties. You're somehow equating that to "a team in their thirties". In reality, what you see there would STILL have an average age right around 30, in THREE years. That's stupid thought number one. Second is, you're assuming that it would be all the same players.... Stupid thought number 2.

I actually find it incredible how you manage to jam so much stupidity into every post of yours. Even if they're just one line. You and Dopps should go for a few beers, and tape the encounter. Put it up on youtube for us.
- prock

we would not want to compete with your YouTube video

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen written on this site. It's right up there with most of your posts.

Why don't you go back and think through it for a little while. So, the oldest players on the team are 27 or 28, and would be in their early thirties. You're somehow equating that to "a team in their thirties". In reality, what you see there would STILL have an average age right around 30, in THREE years. That's stupid thought number one. Second is, you're assuming that it would be all the same players.... Stupid thought number 2.

I actually find it incredible how you manage to jam so much stupidity into every post of yours. Even if they're just one line. You and Dopps should go for a few beers, and tape the encounter. Put it up on youtube for us.
- prock

WTF are you talking about?

If a core group can't win in their prime their odds of winning it will only go down as they age and are past-prime.

Arguing that only makes you look stupid.

And we aren't talking about a "few" vets here. We are talking about 9/10 of your teams top scorers.

WTF are you talking about?

If a core group can't win in their prime their odds of winning it will only go down as they age and are past-prime.

Arguing that only makes you look stupid.
- gretzky

Tell you what. Take the age of all the players you just listed. Add 3 years. Count how many are over 30. Then go and compare it to the last 4 or 5 cup winning teams, and see what you come up with.

Tell you what. Take the age of all the players you just listed. Add 3 years. Count how many are over 30. Then go and compare it to the last 4 or 5 cup winning teams, and see what you come up with.
- prock

Bostons top 5 scorers last year in the playoffs (age):

1) 24
2) 25
3) 22
4) 30
5) 25

4 players 25 or under (prime). 1 vet.

Toronto's top 5 players age in 2014-2015 (earliest I could see a cup run)

1) 27
2) 31
3) 31
4) 29
5) 29

0 players 25 or under.

See the difference?

How many "runs" at the cup will players of that age give you?

Let's do another one Prock:

The year before (Chicago)

Top 5 scorers in the playoffs ages:

1) 21
2) 21
3) 28
4) 26
5) 25

See? With the exception of Detroit who's players age like wine most recent cup winners don't do it with their top 5 scorers all being around 30 or older.

Personally I like the rebuilding method like the Oilers are doing because if you look at our top 5 scorers 4 of them are 22 or under. That gives you a much larger window to build a winner than having all 5 at 25-30. It can be done at an older age but the window is just too small IMO.