<p>It&#8217;s the first off-season Leaflets of the year. It would be nice if these would occur a little later into the spring, but all frustration aside, this was the Leafs best post season since Pat Quinn was behind the bench. Does that in anyway make it good enough or is slowly inching towards success acceptable with the amount of talent on the roster? Absolutely not, and that&#8217;s where a lot of the thoughts in this week&#8217;s Leaflets are heading.</p>
<h2>Keeping Treliving (for now) makes sense(-ish)</h2>
<p>I&#8217;ll put this out there right now, two seasons into Brad Treliving as GM and I can affirm what I said when he was hired, I don&#8217;t like this signing.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong, he did great on bringing in Anthony Stolarz and Chris Tanev. Both of those were big moves that didn&#8217;t break the bank and certainly nudged the Leafs in the right direction and should be applauded. The Brandon Carlo trade made sense, the acquisitions of  Max Pacioretty, Philippe Myers, Simon Benoit and Steven Lorentz have had merit, and getting rid of Sheldon Keefe was something that had to be done. There are positives.</p>
<p>In contrast, at best the jury is still out on Craig Berube, Scott Laughton has been nowhere good enough for the price paid for him, and the signings/re-signings of Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Ryan Reaves, Max Domi, and David Kampf have all been disappointments. Throw in the fact that Treliving passed on his window where Marner could be traded, ran up the cost re-sign William Nylander, and has left Toronto without a first round draft pick until 2028, and I feel like I&#8217;m overstating my case for why I&#8217;m not a fan.</p>
<p>That said, Keith Pelley deciding to keep Treliving on would make some sense, if you assume that MLSE does intend to fill the President of Hockey Operations vacancy created by Shanahan&#8217;s departure.</p>
<p>The new President should have the opportunity to pick their GM, that&#8217;s not a bold way of thinking. At the height of optimism of the Shanahan era, things worked started progressing when Shanahan had his guy in Kyle Dubas, and Kyle Dubas was at his best when he had his guy in Sheldon Keefe. A coach and GM knowing what players are needed on the ice and how they will be played, and the President&#8217;s vision for the hockey team being fulfilled through his direct reports is just good business. Obviously, from the experience we can see where fractures were formed and the vision was adjusted to some disapproval, but starting with a group that is on the same page still makes sense and wanting to recreate that isn&#8217;t a radical approach.</p>
<p>Pelley as a more hands on overseer of the Leafs already seems uninspired. In the sense that almost any career executive would seem uninspired. Treliving being the last line of &#8220;hockey guy&#8221; before the boardroom might not sit right with anyone wanting an inspired new direction, but the value might come from the fact that through the process of Pelley being hands on, he might soon learn that a President of Hockey Operations is something he needs and in that likely scenario, it reverts back to the situation outlined above speaking to the merits of a President that has selected his own GM and trusts them with their vision for the team.</p>
<p>The issue is the point of time. Ideally Shanahan would have been let go a year ago and things like Marner and Tavares&#8217; free agency wouldn&#8217;t be left to the MLSE CEO and a potential lame duck GM to address. If Marner walks, there should also be a legitimate concern about how the cap space created by that departure is spent, and should Toronto want to take on an expensive long term commitment to players like Sam Bennett, Nik Ehlers, or Aaron Ekblad without knowing what the new direction is? (I&#8217;d say looking at Ekblad no matter what makes sense, but the point about spending remains.)</p>
<p>Perhaps the best situation here is for Brad Treliving to look at this situation as his audition for his own GM (or potentially the President job) and if he can meaningfully tackle the Leafs colossal needs this summer, there is a good chance he&#8217;ll change minds like mine. Unfortunately, his time in Calgary doesn&#8217;t provide evidence to this going smoothly, in which case I hope Keith Pelley realizes he has a pretty good Plan B with Brandon Pridham in the front office that seems deserving of taking a crack at the Leafs GM job.</p>
<h2>There isn&#8217;t a Marner replacement and that&#8217;s fine</h2>
<p>Understandably with a high likelihood of Marner departing and Leafs fans having plenty of time to spend looking at the unrestricted free agent list, there&#8217;s been a lot of discussion about how there really isn&#8217;t a way to replace Mitch Marner.</p>
<p>There are plenty of people salivating over the idea of bringing in Sam Bennett with a good chunk of the cap space created by Marner&#8217;s departure, and I&#8217;ll admit adding a tough, step over the line player who fits on a second line has a lot of appeal. Just likely not at the price he&#8217;s going to command, and when you factor in that Bennett had a rough go under Treliving for much of his time on the Flames, and that this is still a matter of dealing with Darren Ferris (the same agent as Marner), I&#8217;m not sure if this is the idea match people are presenting at as. And of course, he&#8217;s still no Marner.</p>
<p>Nik Ehlers, Brock Boeser, Matt Duchene, and Patrick Kane are other examples of players who are decidedly not Mitch Marner who will potentially be available in free agency that the Leafs could go after. And while it is entirely possible one of these players comes in or even two with the cap space created, there isn&#8217;t much likelihood that one of them will be a 100-point top line forward. That&#8217;s a good thing.</p>
<p>Moving on from Marner is as much about moving on from a philosophy as it is about moving on from a player. Harping on Marner&#8217;s post season production is one thing and perhaps feeling his style of play isn&#8217;t what will help the Maple Leafs win can certainly be part of it, and make the case for him being the &#8220;Core Four&#8221; player worth jettisoning, but it is more the issue of having half of the salary cap tied up with four forwards and limiting what can be done across the rest of the lineup.</p>
<p>Marner&#8217;s departure and either Tavares&#8217; departure or pay cut open up a lot of possibilities to reimagine what the Maple Leafs are. And while free agency might not provide the best long term answer and Toronto shouldn&#8217;t commit to Brock Boeser being part of their future simply because he&#8217;s there, not spending $14M on Marner means the possibility to shift from being a two line deep team to possibly a three line deep team.</p>
<p>Knowing that future help is on potentially on the way in the form of Easton Cowan, and that in theory William Nylander would join Matthews and Knies on the top line, there are a number of options that can bulk up the middle of the forwards lineup without breaking the bank and shouldn&#8217;t require long term contract commitments.</p>
<p>Players like Andrew Mangipane, Reilly Smith, Andrei Kuzmenko, and Anthony Mantha can all play short term overhaul roles on the Maple Leafs from an offensive perspective. And if Toronto is wanting to explore a tougher to play against lineup card, players like Trent Frederic, Yanni Gourde, and Brandon Tanev are potential fits that by no means replace Marner, but shift the Leafs from the approach of having one really great player on the ice for twenty minutes and instead having pretty good players on the ice for the full sixty minutes. (I know that I&#8217;m using <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6h3nqWBNPE&amp;pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD">Michael Scott Pizza by Alfredo vs. Alfredo&#8217;s Pizza Cafe</a> logic here.)</p>
<p>The Leafs should treat the 2025-26 season like a pilot program and at least see if the committee approach works. One of the positives of if Marner moves on is the potential cap flexibility. The Maple Leafs shouldn&#8217;t immediately give up that flexibility on one or two unrestricted free agents at are likely in their 30s or close to it that will also likely be seeking a long term deal.</p>
<h2>Steven Lorentz: To sign or not to sign</h2>
<p>I&#8217;ll admit I liked Steven Lorentz a lot this season. I didn&#8217;t expect to and was surprised that his tryout went as well as it did with the Leafs. Right up until the last game of the playoffs I felt like he rarely gave me anything to complain about and while some of that is based on lower expectations attached to a fourth line, I would say that he had his moments of surprise, and I genuinely appreciated that he was excited to be a Maple Leaf.</p>
<p>All of that being said, bringing Lorentz back shouldn&#8217;t be a no brainer because it feels like we&#8217;ve gone through these bottom line fan favourite situations time and time again only to watch the new contract result in increased comfort by the player and higher expectations from Leafs fans and no one lives up to the next deal. It feels like some of the reality the Leafs have lived after the initial &#8220;show-me&#8221; deal with David Kampf. He came in and outperformed his low expectations and then received a new contract after he failed to live up to his initial success and having already providing a year of evidence that he was beginning to struggle.</p>
<p>Jay McClement is another famous example of it, and it seems to be a by-product of Head Coaches falling in love with a role player.</p>
<p>Berube loves Lorentz. Treliving seems to love Lorentz, and a lot of fans either love/like/accept he&#8217;s a decent fourth line option. Bringing him back would be nice, but it&#8217;s a situation where a bit of a reality check is required. Lorentz is not someone you want sitting on the books if things go bad. He isn&#8217;t someone playing at a $1M AAV level. And as much as the Leafs might love Lorentz, you can find another hardnosed from fourth liner from the GTA in free agency that will either come in at or close to the league minimum or on a PTO.</p>
<p>Despite the salary cap going up and the Leafs potentially having plenty of cap space to work with, there&#8217;s no reason to overspend in the wrong places.</p>


It's the first off-season Leaflets of the year. It would be nice if these would occur a little later into the spring, but all frustration aside, this was the Leafs best post season since Pat Quinn was behind the bench. Does that in anyway make it good enough or is slowly inching towards success acceptable with the amount of talent on the roster? Absolutely not, and that's where a lot of the thoughts in this week's Leaflets are heading.
<h2>Keeping Treliving (for now) makes sense(-ish)</h2>
I'll put this out there right now, two seasons into Brad Treliving as GM and I can affirm what I said when he was hired, I don't like this signing.

Don't get me wrong, he did great on bringing in Anthony Stolarz and Chris Tanev. Both of those were big moves that didn't break the bank and certainly nudged the Leafs in the right direction and should be applauded. The Brandon Carlo trade made sense, the acquisitions of  Max Pacioretty, Philippe Myers, Simon Benoit and Steven Lorentz have had merit, and getting rid of Sheldon Keefe was something that had to be done. There are positives.

In contrast, at best the jury is still out on Craig Berube, Scott Laughton has been nowhere good enough for the price paid for him, and the signings/re-signings of Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Ryan Reaves, Max Domi, and David Kampf have all been disappointments. Throw in the fact that Treliving passed on his window where Marner could be traded, ran up the cost re-sign William Nylander, and has left Toronto without a first round draft pick until 2028, and I feel like I'm overstating my case for why I'm not a fan.

That said, Keith Pelley deciding to keep Treliving on would make some sense, if you assume that MLSE does intend to fill the President of Hockey Operations vacancy created by Shanahan's departure.

The new President should have the opportunity to pick their GM, that's not a bold way of thinking. At the height of optimism of the Shanahan era, things worked started progressing when Shanahan had his guy in Kyle Dubas, and Kyle Dubas was at his best when he had his guy in Sheldon Keefe. A coach and GM knowing what players are needed on the ice and how they will be played, and the President's vision for the hockey team being fulfilled through his direct reports is just good business. Obviously, from the experience we can see where fractures were formed and the vision was adjusted to some disapproval, but starting with a group that is on the same page still makes sense and wanting to recreate that isn't a radical approach.

Pelley as a more hands on overseer of the Leafs already seems uninspired. In the sense that almost any career executive would seem uninspired. Treliving being the last line of "hockey guy" before the boardroom might not sit right with anyone wanting an inspired new direction, but the value might come from the fact that through the process of Pelley being hands on, he might soon learn that a President of Hockey Operations is something he needs and in that likely scenario, it reverts back to the situation outlined above speaking to the merits of a President that has selected his own GM and trusts them with their vision for the team.

The issue is the point of time. Ideally Shanahan would have been let go a year ago and things like Marner and Tavares' free agency wouldn't be left to the MLSE CEO and a potential lame duck GM to address. If Marner walks, there should also be a legitimate concern about how the cap space created by that departure is spent, and should Toronto want to take on an expensive long term commitment to players like Sam Bennett, Nik Ehlers, or Aaron Ekblad without knowing what the new direction is? (I'd say looking at Ekblad no matter what makes sense, but the point about spending remains.)

Perhaps the best situation here is for Brad Treliving to look at this situation as his audition for his own GM (or potentially the President job) and if he can meaningfully tackle the Leafs colossal needs this summer, there is a good chance he'll change minds like mine. Unfortunately, his time in Calgary doesn't provide evidence to this going smoothly, in which case I hope Keith Pelley realizes he has a pretty good Plan B with Brandon Pridham in the front office that seems deserving of taking a crack at the Leafs GM job.
<h2>There isn't a Marner replacement and that's fine</h2>
Understandably with a high likelihood of Marner departing and Leafs fans having plenty of time to spend looking at the unrestricted free agent list, there's been a lot of discussion about how there really isn't a way to replace Mitch Marner.

There are plenty of people salivating over the idea of bringing in Sam Bennett with a good chunk of the cap space created by Marner's departure, and I'll admit adding a tough, step over the line player who fits on a second line has a lot of appeal. Just likely not at the price he's going to command, and when you factor in that Bennett had a rough go under Treliving for much of his time on the Flames, and that this is still a matter of dealing with Darren Ferris (the same agent as Marner), I'm not sure if this is the idea match people are presenting at as. And of course, he's still no Marner.

Nik Ehlers, Brock Boeser, Matt Duchene, and Patrick Kane are other examples of players who are decidedly not Mitch Marner who will potentially be available in free agency that the Leafs could go after. And while it is entirely possible one of these players comes in or even two with the cap space created, there isn't much likelihood that one of them will be a 100-point top line forward. That's a good thing.

Moving on from Marner is as much about moving on from a philosophy as it is about moving on from a player. Harping on Marner's post season production is one thing and perhaps feeling his style of play isn't what will help the Maple Leafs win can certainly be part of it, and make the case for him being the "Core Four" player worth jettisoning, but it is more the issue of having half of the salary cap tied up with four forwards and limiting what can be done across the rest of the lineup.

Marner's departure and either Tavares' departure or pay cut open up a lot of possibilities to reimagine what the Maple Leafs are. And while free agency might not provide the best long term answer and Toronto shouldn't commit to Brock Boeser being part of their future simply because he's there, not spending $14M on Marner means the possibility to shift from being a two line deep team to possibly a three line deep team.

Knowing that future help is on potentially on the way in the form of Easton Cowan, and that in theory William Nylander would join Matthews and Knies on the top line, there are a number of options that can bulk up the middle of the forwards lineup without breaking the bank and shouldn't require long term contract commitments.

Players like Andrew Mangipane, Reilly Smith, Andrei Kuzmenko, and Anthony Mantha can all play short term overhaul roles on the Maple Leafs from an offensive perspective. And if Toronto is wanting to explore a tougher to play against lineup card, players like Trent Frederic, Yanni Gourde, and Brandon Tanev are potential fits that by no means replace Marner, but shift the Leafs from the approach of having one really great player on the ice for twenty minutes and instead having pretty good players on the ice for the full sixty minutes. (I know that I'm using <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6h3nqWBNPE&amp;pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD">Michael Scott Pizza by Alfredo vs. Alfredo's Pizza Cafe</a> logic here.)

The Leafs should treat the 2025-26 season like a pilot program and at least see if the committee approach works. One of the positives of if Marner moves on is the potential cap flexibility. The Maple Leafs shouldn't immediately give up that flexibility on one or two unrestricted free agents at are likely in their 30s or close to it that will also likely be seeking a long term deal.
<h2>Steven Lorentz: To sign or not to sign</h2>
I'll admit I liked Steven Lorentz a lot this season. I didn't expect to and was surprised that his tryout went as well as it did with the Leafs. Right up until the last game of the playoffs I felt like he rarely gave me anything to complain about and while some of that is based on lower expectations attached to a fourth line, I would say that he had his moments of surprise, and I genuinely appreciated that he was excited to be a Maple Leaf.

All of that being said, bringing Lorentz back shouldn't be a no brainer because it feels like we've gone through these bottom line fan favourite situations time and time again only to watch the new contract result in increased comfort by the player and higher expectations from Leafs fans and no one lives up to the next deal. It feels like some of the reality the Leafs have lived after the initial "show-me" deal with David Kampf. He came in and outperformed his low expectations and then received a new contract after he failed to live up to his initial success and having already providing a year of evidence that he was beginning to struggle.

Jay McClement is another famous example of it, and it seems to be a by-product of Head Coaches falling in love with a role player.

Berube loves Lorentz. Treliving seems to love Lorentz, and a lot of fans either love/like/accept he's a decent fourth line option. Bringing him back would be nice, but it's a situation where a bit of a reality check is required. Lorentz is not someone you want sitting on the books if things go bad. He isn't someone playing at a $1M AAV level. And as much as the Leafs might love Lorentz, you can find another hardnosed from fourth liner from the GTA in free agency that will either come in at or close to the league minimum or on a PTO.

Despite the salary cap going up and the Leafs potentially having plenty of cap space to work with, there's no reason to overspend in the wrong places.

The futures of Treliving, Marner, and Lorentz: Leaflets

Recent articles from Jon Steitzer

Breaking News