Reflecting on Dave Nonis’ “exit” thoughts—and grading out the Maple Leafs, with some perspective, after a season that ended a bit too soon…

One of the challenges in trying to objectively analyze and assess how individual Maple Leafs did this past mini-season is trying not to get too caught up in the sometimes overly-positive hoopla and roller-coaster emotions of the recently concluded 7-game series with the Bruins.

Thus, I've given myself a few days off - and about a week of contemplation - before wading into this sensitive subject.  We've all had some time to think since the Leafs were ousted so painfully last Monday night in Boston.

Why the need to step back a bit?  Well, if you “graded” certain players on, say, their best moments against Boston, we’d urge Nonis to give them the keys to the city and 20-year contracts at 10 million each—more if they wanted it.  In the same breath, some guys would be traded on the spot (and be given poor grades, too) for some terrible flaw that made fans feel we needed more from them against the not so big and bad after all Bruins.

In any event, I’ll try to provide some kind of fair overview, which I understand right away many of you will disagree with.  But that’s OK, as we do that all the time here at VLM.  What I “see” may not be what you see, etc.., especially when it comes to the Leafs and their sudden-death playoff exit.

**

Quick aside, before I get to my not-very-exhaustive grading methodology regarding our Leafs:  I’m not sure I was exactly thrilled with Nonis’ year-end media session.  Maybe I did not listen closely enough, but he did not sound convinced on Reimer—a lingering open sore for me.  Why we can’t take ‘yes’ for an answer when it comes to Reimer is confusing to me.  Of course he has flaws in his game (to be clear, so does Carey Price, Rask, Lundqvist, Jimmy Howard and every other “elite” goalie in the league)  There aren’t many all-time greats in the league right now, as there were just a few years ago with Belfour, Hasek, Roy, maybe even Curtis Joseph, etc..The Leafs should feel good that they finally have someone who can generally rise to the occasion.  Beware what you trade for, sometimes.

Look, I understand (we all do) that GM's always say the same things at this year-end 'pressers'.  They are looking to get better, etc., etc.  Everyone has to earn their job.  The standard stuff. I get it.

But I’m not sure where exactly Nonis thinks he is getting someone better in goal, and it’s quickly becoming an old and an annoying theme for me.  (Yes, guys have to prove themselves every day, every season, etc., but I’m tired of hearing it when it comes to Reimer.  I never bought Burke’s supposed  “belief” in Reimer because it was said always with the obvious caveat that they were looking to replace him, if  they could, with someone better.  Nonis is singing, in my ears, the same tune.  Would we be having this conversation if we could put a puck into an empty net in Game 7?  Oh well….)

On the other hand, Mr. Nonis appears set to bet the farm on Kessel, which is a popular choice in Leafworld these days because Phil played pretty well (and the puck went in the net a few times) and hard for the most part in the Boston series— after a productive 2012-’13 season.  Kessel seems to have won doubters over, though I can all but guarantee the doubts will return the next time Phil is perceived to sort of 'glide' through a stretch of 10 games next season without lighting the lamp.  (Did we, by the way, over-rate his efforts against the Bruins, because of years of hype and his obvious struggles against them?  I’m not saying he didn’t play well—I think he did—but were we also desperate to see him as a playoff performer, eh?  Joe Thornton has had some big series in the playoffs, but is still criticized after all these years when he doesn’t lead the Sharks further every year.  Let’s be honest: the bar was fairly low for Phil this year in the playoffs and we were thrilled he met it.  He didn’t have to keep proving himself under pressure for four rounds…)

And I'll add this:  when it comes to Kessel, the organization is still trying to make the public case they were not swindled by the Bruins.  So we of course will hear Nonis praise Kessel and talk about re-signing him.  They don't want the guy to walk and they don't want to be left with "nothing" while Seguin and Hamilton play big minutes for the next several years with Boston..  (And if that is the case, by the way, if I'm Nonis I will make haste to get a deal done this summer.  Every time I hear a GM say there is no hurry to lock up a free-agent who won't be "free" until a year from now, I think of all the guys (like Parise and Suter last summer) who went elsewhere in free-agency.  This is a deal best done sooner than later, if I'm in Nonis' shoes.

Nonis talking about Bozak, on the other hand?  A very different response, and understandably so.  The Leafs are clearly interested in retaining Bozak, but only at the right price (which is fair).  That will please those who aren’t fans of the now “veteran” Maple Leaf pivot, but not supportive enough a statement for those who think Bozak brings a lot to the Leaf table most nights.

**

One thing I did like about the year-end stuff:  Carlyle acknowledging his own errors in the dying moments of Game 7.  I don't recall that he expressly said he should have called a time-out when things were getting tense, but he did say that he should have urged his players to be aggressive and not sit back (he had the opportunity during the Bruins time-out) in the final moments.

He also indicated he should have had different players on the ice.  I think that was not a case of throwing the players on the ice under the bus; more his admitting he did not put people in the best position to handle a tough assignment.  Good for Carlyle.  He expects his players to "be better", as he put it, next season.  He knows he will need to be better, too.

**

This is just the beginning of that long and sometimes exciting off-season, when speculation ramps up about all the things that will—or won’t—happen.  But that’s Nonis’ job, and I’ll leave it to him to keep moving the project along.  Froma  fan perspective, I'll say this:  give me a) some veterans who can help prevent what happened in the dying minutes in Boston Monday night last   b) get me a big-time center, and please,   c) another defenseman of high quality.

Not easy to do, but I’m not paid millions to make it happen.  So I’ll leave it to Nonis and his staff.

**

On to the grades, starting today with the defenseman and goalies.  (By the way, as I tried to note above, these grades relate to their full body of work this past season- not simply what they did in the playoffs, though that is a factor, of course…)

Goal

James Reimer  B+

To be clear, I’ve never said Reimer was the reincarnation of Terry Sawchuk (shown at right in his mid-'60s Leaf days...) or that he  is a modern-day Johnny Bower.  Those guys were the among the best of the best, some of the finest of all time and Hall-of-Fame goaltenders.  But Reimer overcame a lot of doubt and adversity to register a heck of a season.  Do we get to 7 games against the Bruins without him this past season?  His aforementioned imperfections aside, to me, the young man has the temperament and skill to play in Toronto.  Now, I cannot forecast consistent success for him. Too many goalies go from hero one season to “can’t stop a puck” the next nowadays.  But as of this moment, he deserves to be the (un-questioned) “number-one” guy.  I have no problem with brass challenging him, as there is never room for complacency.  But he deserves to know he is the guy.  I think he will continue to get better, and prove his worth.  Wouldn't it be nice to going into the next few seasons without huge question marks in goal every summer and fall?

Ben Scrivens  C+

I like the way Scrivens battles.  Maybe it’s not fair, based on awfully limited sample sizes, but I’m just not seeing him as a first-string goalie in this league.  Dwayne Roloson and Tim Thomas weren’t "stars" until their 30s, so the young man may have a higher ceiling than I’m projecting.  But for me, it’s hard to give him a better grade, based on relatively little playing time.  That said, he did his job, however.

Defense

Dion Phaneuf  B+

Those who swear by Dion will say I’m being unfair and not acknowledging all that he brings to the table with this grade.  Those that primarily see his flaws will think I’m grading him too easily.  I’ve tried to find a common ground.  He was tougher at times this season than I’ve given him credit for.  He logs huge minutes.  He always plays against the other team’s top guys.  What more do I want?  Rate him higher if that’s how you see it.  I just can’t.  Being a de facto number-one because we don’t have anyone else, for me, doesn’t mean he deserves an “A” based on effort  (most nights) and ice time.

Carl Gunnarsson  B-

I’ve liked Gunnarsson for years.  I’m just not sure he has jumped out of the pack quite the way I had (in my mind) projected him doing two seasons ago.  He’s a nice player and does a lot of good things.  And we all know he played hurt all season long.  But I just see him as, basically, a decent-to-good “number-four” defenseman on a really good team.  Is that unfair?  Maybe it is. Thus, given his limitations, he gets the assigned grade. Feel free to take umbrage with me...

Jake Gardiner  C+/B

Why the wide gap in the grade?  I’ll get this out of the way, because I know Leaf fans love Gardiner and think I’m too hard on him.   He was hurt and his season was almost “un-rate-able” as a result.  When he did play, he did not perform the way Carlyle wanted/needed him to.  So he spent a lot of time upstairs.  When he got a chance in the playoffs, he was a demon on skates, flying all over the ice (maybe not what Carlyle had in mind; I’m not really sure) and making plays.  However, he was in front of his own goal in overtime when the season ended, watching the Bruins scored the series winner—a situation I feared he might find himself in at some point in the playoffs.  Was that last goal all on him?  Of course not.  He’s a young player with rather remarkable skills.  Once he develops his game in and around his own goal (and goal line) he should be superb.

Mark Fraser  B

He doesn’t get the grade for his offensive prowess, eh?  And yes, his extra minutes against the Bruins (until he was hurt) exposed him a bit, but that’s no surprise, surely.  Who expected Fraser to even be on the roster, much less become a minute-eating guy on our blueline at playoff time.  I like that when he hits guys, they stay “hit”.  He’s smart, doesn’t try to do too much.  In the right circumstance, he has shown himself to be an excellent 5/6 defenseman.  His very healthy plus/minus during the regular season was nice, too.  That he could fight and stand up for teammates made him a popular and important guy.  And he was more than just a fighter. So a solid grade.

John-Michael Liles C

How long has he been here?  Two years?  Three?  I don’t even know.  Nice player.  Has good skills and does good things.  But at the end of the day, I’m not sure (maybe  because of injuries, etc.) he has had much of an impact in his time here, at least not on a consistent basis.

Ryan O’Byrne  C

Adequate, I guess, as a 6/7 defenseman.  I don’t know what to say.  Most NHL teams in the cap era employ players on the fourth line and their final defense pair that are there because they are a) tough or b) don’t cost a lot.  I’m not sure where O’Byrne fits, and I don't really have a strong view as to his ability or “value”.  So a modest grade, at best.

Cody Franson  B-

Now, this is a tricky one.  Again, as I noted above, as with some of his teammates, on his ‘best’ nights, he’d get a much higher rating.  On his worst nights, he’d get a lot less than what I gave him.  So again, I was trying to be fair, recognizing that he made strides this season.  He brought some physical play to the table, and we all loved that (finally) we had a guy on the blueline (and especially on the power play) who could actually get the puck to the net—where good things could result.  A useful player, so a useful grade. Next year could be better—or worse.

Mike Kostka  C

If I was grading Kosta based on my pre-season expectations (which were, ah, zilch…) the longtime AHL rearguard would probably get a B+.  He played valiantly all season, was solid early on and at various points along the way, but was swimming with sharks as the season went on.  I like his passion, but thought that, as he tried to rein himself in as the season wore on, he may have actually been less effective at times—though my guess is Carlyle feels quite the opposite.  Played beyond expectations, which is always a good thing.

**

As much as I appreciate what this group (the defense corps, specifically) worked to achieve this season, it seems clear that we need something more to be able to play with the “big boys” on a regular basis—and certainly once we start competing against Western Conference teams again (have you seen the playoffs out West? Ouch...). 

Yes, young Rielly is on the radar, maybe as early as next season (a little soon for my liking, but I so seldom seem to get consulted on these things…). But beyond his pending arrival, I’m talking about the need for a proven guy who can play big minutes and be a physical presence, much like the Predators had with Suter and Weber all those years as they were on their way to building a top-flight team. (And even they didn’t get to the promised land, after literally years and years of David Poile assiduously building that roster to meet the needs of a Barry Trotz-coached team…)

I don’t expect unanimous agreement regarding my “grades”—again, I’m not exactly employing a statistics-based assessment tool and don’t suggest this is remotely scientific or without flaws—so by all means share your thoughts if you drop by VLM this week.

Again, a reminder to those who visit VLM—I’ll be posting less frequently in the weeks ahead but will still post when the time feels right and there is something to bat around.  (Likely I’ll post on Sunday nights/Monday and again at some point during the week, as we gear up for free-agency and a summer of trade activity and of course, the draft.)

In the next day or so, I’ll look to grade the forwards.