On Saturday night, as the second period of game four was slipping away, we witnessed a watershed moment for this era of Toronto Maple Leafs hockey. A heated discussion took place between Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner, and William Nylander. One way or another, this interaction will live on in the memories and montages of Leafs history.
For the time being, as the Leafs cling to their playoff lives, this scene perfectly encapsulates the failures of the past and what feels like an inevitable future. There is a slim chance that the Leafs can conjure a better version of themselves over the rest of the series. Beyond that, it might also mean the end of an era. From this nexus, many of the tangents that form the bigger picture meet.
The “big three” not getting it done
The symbolism of the bench scene is that three highly paid, highly skilled, and highly frustrated forwards are unable to succeed in the playoffs. The results speak for themselves: the Leafs have won one out of eight playoff series with Matthews, Marner, and Nylander on the team. The power play has routinely failed in the playoffs, and the Leafs’ offence—their foremost strength—has dried up.
Conceptually, the blueprint of the team is being questioned. Can so much money be tied into forwards, much less wingers? Can a team succeed with such little dimension? Can the rest of the roster be scrounged together, much less incorporated into the team’s identity in a meaningful way?
The details provide us with complications to that analysis. Nylander’s extension does not kick in until next season, so he has yet to cost as much as Matthews and Marner. All three have grown to add some dimension to their games over the years. All three are dealing with health issues—Marner returning just before the playoffs, Nylander mysteriously missing the first three games of the series, and Matthews is clearly dealing with something.
In truth, what links these players most is their quality, their age, and their lack of playoff success. John Tavares costs as much as Marner and Matthews and is the team captain, but he is a different question altogether. Morgan Rielly costs a bit more than Nylander, for now—and was drafted by the Leafs—but he is separate as well.
After game four, Marner and Nylander downplayed the exchange. To some extent, this emotion is years overdue. Nylander showed a lot of character during the incident and with a constructive and succinct response after the game, noting the love between the three and that holding each other to a higher standard is a privilege and a necessity. Matthews had nothing left and was forced out of the game shortly after the exchange. Marner did score later in the game but is clearly facing the most scrutiny of the trio.
With the Leafs’ season one loss away from doom, so too might be the tenure of the big three. It is true that the contracts offer the players some protection from movement, but with the trio limping to the finish line, the already large appetite for change is only growing. Once again, it has not been enough, and even more, this might be the worst a series has ever gone for the group.
Explanations, however rational, can only go so far. Whether or not any one of the big three is moved is one thing, but there will be changes, and others will also be impacted by such a listless performance.
Coaching and management also to blame
While Matthews, Marner, and Nylander are the big fish on the Leafs’ roster, the scrutiny goes beyond them, extending up the Leafs’ organization. The team’s performance so far will only increase the focus here. By virtue of his role, Sheldon Keefe is the most disposable, even despite signing an extension this season. Keefe has an outstanding regular season record as the Leafs’ head coach, but of course this has not translated to much playoff success. Likewise, through the regular season, Keefe seemed to keep his top players motivated.
Ultimately, this is far from enough to secure Keefe’s job security going forward. Fans were disappointed by Keefe’s comments after the game four loss, defending his team’s work ethic. Whether or not Keefe is being completely honest or trying to coach up his team, these comments have served to intensify calls for a coaching change in the offseason. While perceptions of Keefe can vary from person to person, the Leafs’ poor performance on special teams is indefensible. Through the Keefe era, several assistants have taken control of the special teams, but both the power play and penalty kill have continued to fall short when it matters most.
The call for change does not stop with the coach, though. General Manager Brad Treliving is still in his first year with the Leafs, and a change now would be unconventional. At times, Treliving’s additions and teambuilding philosophies have been praised. Some of this is due to his moves working out, though much of it is fuelled by those who simply wanted a change from his predecessor, Kyle Dubas. With a year under his belt, Treliving might be tempted to make more aggressive decisions to try to upgrade the team.
Treliving is the third GM hired by Leafs President Brendan Shanahan, who is receiving a growing share of criticism as well. Shanahan has ushered in the most successful era of Leafs hockey in the salary cap era—a low bar to clear—but an accomplishment nonetheless. As the structure of MLSE changes—now with Keith Pelley hired above team presidents like Shanahan—there might be a clock on Shanahan’s future with the team. Pelley expressed a willingness to work with and support his current presidents, making a change this summer quite unlikely.
Shanahan and Treliving are both expected to receive more time to improve the Leafs, but their hands might be forced to be bolder than they have been.
How can the Leafs solve their issues?
There is some good news for Leafs fans, as the salary cap is back on the rise after the COVID-19 stagnation. The bad news is thanks to Nylander’s extension kicking in, next season will be another where the Leafs have an exorbitant amount of cap space allocated to a handful of forwards. The view that their combined cap hit limits the Leafs’ ability to build a reasonable team around them is only gaining supporting evidence.
The Leafs’ playoff scoring woes are bad enough—a failure of the team’s alleged strength—but the consistent neglect of true strength on the blue line and in net has made things worse. Through the years, the Leafs have done a good job at finding capable depth pieces at a value, but the path to success in this manner is narrow, if it exists at all.
A favourite fan theory is trading away a high-level forward can shake up the Leafs’ equation, instead investing in positions that have consistently eluded them like RD and G. Trading away such a high-level player in their prime is a high-stakes proposition, but one that is becoming more appealing with each playoff failure. While trading, for example, Marner to the Calgary Flames for Rasmus Andersson and Jacob Markstrom makes sense on some level, the Leafs’ high-paid forwards all have protection clauses in their contracts, making such moves extremely difficult.
The other option is to take a longer-term approach to reshaping the roster. The 2024–25 season will be the last year on both Marner’s and Tavares’ current deals, and it is quite possible that both re-sign with the team. While Marner’s next deal will likely come in at a similarly high cap hit, Tavares will be taking some level of pay cut. While this still leaves the Leafs with three forwards making above $10 million against the cap, the rising cap means that less cap space is taken up on a percentage basis.
In other words, there might be an effort to retool the team with 2025–26 in mind. It certainly helps that both Fraser Minten and Easton Cowan are prospects who might well bolster the group by that time, but perhaps the Leafs will invest in other players who might fit into this timeline or grow into bigger roles. There are always young players and prospects who are lost in the shuffle for their current teams, and finding some gems is a possibility.
We might have already seen the beginnings of this when the Leafs traded for left-shot defenceman Cade Webber this season. Some other options might be Philip Broberg, who does not seem to have a path into the Edmonton Oilers lineup. In goal, they could look at Tomas Suchanek—a goalie in the Anaheim Ducks system—rather than a more immediate option like John Gibson, who is long rumoured to be on the trade block.
This strategy has worked for teams in the past. The Vancouver Canucks’ bet on Filip Hronek paid off, as did the Colorado Avalanche taking chances on players like Valeri Nichushkin and Artturi Lehkonen over the years. The concept of punting on a year of the big three’s primes is not exactly appealing, but so too has been trading draft capital for rentals at the deadline each season—often for the same things over and over—instead of actually addressing the team’s needs long term.
Livin’ on a prayer
The current Leafs still have a chance to change the narrative for good. Hope is dwindling across Leafs Nation, but perhaps this iconic bench discussion can spark a new chapter, a new reputation. When Ryan Reaves was signed this offseason, there was conjecture about how quiet the Leafs bench has been. Finally, the bench has started to show some of the emotion that the fan base has been feeling for years.
At this point, apathy has set in for many Leafs fans, but clearly, the players feel differently. Even if the Leafs lose this round or trade some of their core players, this moment might be the start of a new mentality in the future. Regardless of what decisions are made, the Leafs will need this hardened desperation to earn any success going forward.
Their individual excellence is well documented, even in falling short of milestones and major awards. Scoring 70 goals or 100 points is fun, as is rocketing up the franchise’s all-time scoring records. Legitimate Selke consideration is great, as are grand moments like dominating the NHL’s Global Series in Sweden or All-Star Game supremacy. Ultimately, these accomplishments pale in comparison to the real prize: the Stanley Cup.
One Comment