https://twitter.com/Hocke...tatus/1227678824663371776

- winsix

For christ sakes....its about who debrincat was playing with. I never said strome carried debrincat. Like (frank) man...you are sp obsessed with being right you dont take the time to see what is actually being said.
- mykokes

You'd think he'd try doing it more often, then.

Meh, he is easily a 3rd line winger. Has potential fo be a center but we will get a better idea of that as time goes on.

But at the moment, even if he turns out to be a winger, 1.25 for a 3rd line winger is a great signing.
- LeafGuy89

Not sure where you are getting ‘easily a 3rd line winger’. That guy has hands of stone. He is big and can skate and has decent defensive awareness but lets not get carried away. If he is easily a 3rd liner, does that mean he could be a 2nd liner? Come on... he probably has the potential to score about 15 goals max with those hands.

I like him on the 4th line for sure. But above that, meh. He would need to prove more...

https://twitter.com/Hocke...tatus/1227678824663371776


- GreatGigInTheSky

Geez... that doesn’t look good. Can barely shoot....

Agreed. He has been okay... but seems to be a fourth line player at this point. At least he is better then Goat...
- Hockey_Reverend

I'd say that while Engvall isn't a top-6 guy, he is a top-9 guy (which is such a pleasant way of saying 3rd liner). You don't need him on your PP, but you want him on your PK, and he is both defensively responsible, but also capable of providing offense.

Now, I'll grant that if everyone is healthy (noting that Clifford is a UFA), you have roughly this:

Hyman - Matthews - Marner
Mikheyev - Tavares - Nylander
Johnsson - Kerfoot - Kapanen
Engvall - Spezza - Clifford

But if we were to trade Johnsson and Kerfoot (just as the constant example we love to throw out), there would about $6.9m available from that move, and Engvall would move up to 3rd line being replaced by someone like Timashov @ $800k in his wake, leaving $6.1m for a 3C and defensive help. I don't know how much that really weakens us. 20 goal scorers like Johnsson don't grow on trees (although there were 121 of them last year, which is roughly 20% of all forwards who played in the NHL).

You get that feeling that if we sacrificed some offensive effectiveness from the 3rd line for better D, and more responsibility or effectiveness out of the 3C position, the overall +/- might end up in our favour.

Geez... that doesn’t look good. Can barely shoot....
- Hockey_Reverend

All things considered, looks good to me. Some were declaring his career over.

He's got two months to strengthen up before playoffs.

https://twitter.com/Hocke...tatus/1227678824663371776


- GreatGigInTheSky

Great! Hopefully he will be shooting regular pucks within the month.

He seems to be healing quicker than expected but hopefully there are no set backs!

I'd say that while Engvall isn't a top-6 guy, he is a top-9 guy (which is such a pleasant way of saying 3rd liner). You don't need him on your PP, but you want him on your PK, and he is both defensively responsible, but also capable of providing offense.

Now, I'll grant that if everyone is healthy (noting that Clifford is a UFA), you have roughly this:

Hyman - Matthews - Marner
Mikheyev - Tavares - Nylander
Johnsson - Kerfoot - Kapanen
Engvall - Spezza - Clifford

But if we were to trade Johnsson and Kerfoot (just as the constant example we love to throw out), there would about $6.9m available from that move, and Engvall would move up to 3rd line being replaced by someone like Timashov @ $800k in his wake, leaving $6.1m for a 3C and defensive help. I don't know how much that really weakens us. 20 goal scorers like Johnsson don't grow on trees (although there were 121 of them last year, which is roughly 20% of all forwards who played in the NHL).

You get that feeling that if we sacrificed some offensive effectiveness from the 3rd line for better D, and more responsibility or effectiveness out of the 3C position, the overall +/- might end up in our favour.
- Monkeypunk

Marchment

Marchment
- GreatGigInTheSky

The first time I saw him I was so not impressed.

The first time I saw Engvall, I was likewise so not impressed.

"This is the guy we thought would make the NHL? This is what the Marlies are producing?"

I think he may need more than a one game audition!

Great! Hopefully he will be shooting regular pucks within the month.

He seems to be healing quicker than expected but hopefully there are no set backs!
- LeafGuy89

The first time I saw him I was so not impressed.

The first time I saw Engvall, I was likewise so not impressed.

"This is the guy we thought would make the NHL? This is what the Marlies are producing?"

I think he may need more than a one game audition!
- Monkeypunk

6 goals last weekend.

If he can continue to improve his skating (and more importantly, stay healthy), I think he'll be an excellent 4th liner.

5v5 points Kerfoot
2018 - 26 (826min)
2019 - 22 (955min)
2020 - 21 (680min)

for comp.

Kadri
2018 - 32 (1107min)
2019 - 29 (944min)
2020 - 25 (643min)

i think Kerfoot has been full value.
Barrie/Kerfoot fo Kadri is a pretty fair deal


also, Kerfoot is on pace for 1072 5v5 min and 33 points
which is better than Kadri the last 3 years
- senstroll

This season
Kadri: 36pts in 51 games .705 ppg
Barrie: 32pts in 57 games .561 ppg
Kerfoot: 24pts in 52 games .461 ppg
Points wise the trade favours the leafs and we filled two positions of need.
Kadri is playing 2nd line mins, which he wouldnt see here.
Good trade imo.
Even if barrie is a tire fire defensively

This season
Kadri: 36pts in 51 games .705 ppg
Barrie: 32pts in 57 games .561 ppg
Kerfoot: 24pts in 52 games .461 ppg
Points wise the trade favours the leafs and we filled two positions of need.
Kadri is playing 2nd line mins, which he wouldnt see here.
Good trade imo.
Even if barrie is a tire fire defensively
- Fakepartofme

And I do wonder within 2 years if we are saying Kerfoot is better alone than kadri. Numbers are not that far off and Kadri is 4 years older, 1 million per more expensive.

Everyone judges things way too fast.

Engvall has been decent, but I dont think 1.25 is some sort of steal by Dubas. He has 35 career games. We need more runway on him to say that he is a steal at 1.25

he has gone pretty cold in the scoring dept. has 2 points in the last 12 games.
- senstroll

Young players are about projecting.

This season
Kadri: 36pts in 51 games .705 ppg
Barrie: 32pts in 57 games .561 ppg
Kerfoot: 24pts in 52 games .461 ppg
Points wise the trade favours the leafs and we filled two positions of need.
Kadri is playing 2nd line mins, which he wouldnt see here.
Good trade imo.
Even if barrie is a tire fire defensively
- Fakepartofme

Tyson Barrie represents that shift in perception that I struggle with all the time. For instance as a baseball fan, the idea that a guy can strikeout 200 times and bat .230 is fine as long as he hits 35 home runs and drives in 100 runs is something that really bugs me. I can't get past the fact that this guy actually sucks. I mean, his job is to hit the ball, and he does it well 35 times out of 600 and he's a star!

Barre is that type of thinking shifted to hockey. He can't play defense, but is underlying numbers are positive, so he is good for the team, even though he can't do his actual job - which is defense.

And I do wonder within 2 years if we are saying Kerfoot is better alone than kadri. Numbers are not that far off and Kadri is 4 years older, 1 million per more expensive.

Everyone judges things way too fast.
- RogerRoeper

Honestly, I think at 25 we've seen where Kerfoot's at. There's nothing wrong with it - he fits the bill as a 3rd line guy just fine. If there was a cheaper, more reliable option who was a more effective 3C, I'd be willing to sacrifice Kerfoot's $3.5m salary for the cap space.

My feelings towards him are not influenced by Kadri, because while I thought he had some deft hands at times, and I recognized his passion, I was never a huge fan of his constant flopping. I loved his contract, but I was never in love with the player. Also, if you take a 2C and move him to 3C, you lose so much value, so it is what it is.

Tyson Barrie represents that shift in perception that I struggle with all the time. For instance as a baseball fan, the idea that a guy can strikeout 200 times and bat .230 is fine as long as he hits 35 home runs and drives in 100 runs is something that really bugs me. I can't get past the fact that this guy actually sucks. I mean, his job is to hit the ball, and he does it well 35 times out of 600 and he's a star!

Barre is that type of thinking shifted to hockey. He can't play defense, but is underlying numbers are positive, so he is good for the team, even though he can't do his actual job - which is defense.
- Monkeypunk

Barrie is good because he gets on base

Tyson Barrie represents that shift in perception that I struggle with all the time. For instance as a baseball fan, the idea that a guy can strikeout 200 times and bat .230 is fine as long as he hits 35 home runs and drives in 100 runs is something that really bugs me. I can't get past the fact that this guy actually sucks. I mean, his job is to hit the ball, and he does it well 35 times out of 600 and he's a star!

Barre is that type of thinking shifted to hockey. He can't play defense, but is underlying numbers are positive, so he is good for the team, even though he can't do his actual job - which is defense.
- Monkeypunk

Pretty good analogy.
But a batting of .230 means hes hitting more thsn 35 times per 600.
Closer to 140.

Barrie is good because he gets on base
- senstroll

I think that's the opposite. I was always a fan of the guys who get on base. I loved Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs and their .380+ averages, despite not hitting the long ball, they actually contributed to the offense. You sort of knew if you had a rally going with 2 outs that they'd keep it going. There's a feast or famine notion in the .200 hitter / 35 home run guy.

Tyson Barrie is more that kind of player.

Pretty good analogy.
But a batting of .230 means hes hitting more thsn 35 times per 600.
Closer to 140.
- Fakepartofme

also batting average is terrible stat

Pretty good analogy.
But a batting of .230 means hes hitting more thsn 35 times per 600.
Closer to 140.
- Fakepartofme

Right, but no one cares about those hits. It's the 35 home runs that matter.

I'm being glib about it, but from an analytical and optics perspective, this is where the "money" lies. Again, it's why a guy who hits .380 but only singles, and walks a bunch so he has an OBP of say .450 isn't as valuable as the guy who can hit 40 home runs.

I'm not saying I don't get it, I'm just saying don't like it and get off my lawn.

also batting average is terrible stat
- senstroll

You get off my lawn, too.

also batting average is terrible stat
- senstroll

Baseball in general is just terrible.

I think that's the opposite. I was always a fan of the guys who get on base. I loved Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs and their .380+ averages, despite not hitting the long ball, they actually contributed to the offense. You sort of knew if you had a rally going with 2 outs that they'd keep it going. There's a feast or famine notion in the .200 hitter / 35 home run guy.

Tyson Barrie is more that kind of player.
- Monkeypunk

not really, if you are looking at batting average, its like watching through a key hole.
.200 tells you almost nothing about the hitter