If You're Gonna Stay Show Some Mercy Today

Sport was the main occupation of all of us, and continued to be mine for a long time. That is where I had my only lesson in ethics. – Albert Camus.

Perhaps it’s because the sub-text of all sports is about complying with rules and the notions of fair play, ethics and good sportsmanship that fans often develop the expectation that these same values and attributes can and should be found in the professional athletes themselves.

It would be nice to think that the athletes who show leadership, loyalty and courage on the field of play would demonstrate these same attributes off it.

Unfortunately, for me, there’s far too much evidence to the contrary to carry that expectation very far.

This leads me to Mats Sundin.

I think the main reason why there is such divergent views about Sundin’s future is that one-side of the debate is focusing on the explicit rules as found in the CBA, while the other half focuses on those implicit notions, characteristics and values of sport (e.g. doing what’s “right” for the team).

Further complicating matters is money (it’s always money).

Mats Sundin has led the Leafs in every significant statistical category for over a decade and is arguably one of, if not the greatest, player to have skated for the Blue and White. For this, he has been remunerated exceptionally – staggeringly – well.

But does the size of the pay cheque change the principle issue? Should an employee forgo a contractually bargained right and do something against his explicitly expressed desire because it’s in the best interest of his employer and a nebulous group of people called “fans” simply because he’s been well paid?

My answer is no (and clearly others disagree).

But while we’re on the topic of loyalty and what a player “owes” his team and the fans, I’d like to move away from Mats for a minute and propose something entirely new that I’m sure most Leaf fans can agree with.

I think MLSE should ask Jason Blake and Darcy Tucker to retire for the good of the team (and, let’s face it, the best-interest of many fans).

It certainly would be a “loyal” thing for Blake and Tucker to do. It would avoid the ugly spectacle of buy-outs or trips to the minors and the Leafs would be absolved of two hefty long-term cap hits.

Let’s face it, both of these guys have made millions upon millions of dollars for playing a simple kids’ game. Isn't it time Blake and Tucker put the good of the team before their personal best interests and wishes and just hung up their skates?

As long suffering fans, don’t they owe us that much?

Parsing Mats

Two of my favourite bloggers, PPP and Sean, have interesting posts up about the future of Mats Sundin and both seem rather angry that Mats may be skating for another NHL club this September.

Me? Not so much.

I was shouted down on a few discussion boards when I brought this up, but if you parsed Mats' comments at the trade deadline, it was clear that he wasn't ruling out playing for another team - he was ruling out playing for another team as a rental player.

Here are the key quotes from his official statement at the trade deadline:

"I have always believed I would finish my career as a Toronto Maple Leaf so the actual request was still a very difficult one for me to contemplate."

Sadly, Mats did not say - "I will retire as a Leaf" or "I will only play for the Leafs" he just said that he believed he would retire as a Leaf.

There's a big difference there.

Mats went on to say:

"I cannot leave my teammates and join another NHL Club at this time [emphasis mine]. I have never believed in the concept of a rental player. It is my belief that winning the Stanley Cup is the greatest thing you can achieve in hockey but for me, in order to appreciate it you have to have been part of the entire journey and that means October through June. I hope everyone will understand and respect my decision."

At this time.

Those are the killer three words right there.

Worse than "General Manager JFJ"

Worse than "President Richard Peddie"

Worse than "Rask for Raycroft"

At this time...

I hope the big Swede sticks around, but if he leaves town I will completely understand and I won't even be surprised. He clearly left that option open with his statement at the trade deadline.

This may be heresy, but if I was a multi-millionaire with two years, at most, left to pursue my ultimate goal and I had the opportunity to pick chose where to ply my trade, I'm not sure that I'd come back to Toronto.

I'm not sure that I'd come back to be the central marketing plank for Peddie and his ilk, knowing that there's no hope for a Cup and the only post-season action the team will see is on a TV.

I'm not sure that I'd come back to grind out 82 games with another set of b-list wingers (more like c and d-list wingers) on a re-building team, having to face the likes of Berger, Cox, DiManno and Simmons day in day out.

When you look at the mess the Leafs are in, if Mats does decide to sign elsewhere, I won't blame him. I'll blame the suits that brought about this ruin.

Pure Imagination

Damien Cox has filed yet another blog post that I just can't ignore. Just like those Devilishly tasty and tempting peanut M&M's - I just can't say no to the horribly written tripe that man generates.

Speaking of chocolates, is it just me or does Cox's "blog" The Spin conjure up a little Roald Dahl:

We'll begin, with a spin
Traveling in the world of my creation
What we'll see will defy explanation....

Ok, maybe it's just me...With that out of the way, here's the latest bit of pure imagination from Cox:

It seems virtually certain that the NHL season and playoffs will end, and the Maple Leafs will still be without a new Great Helmsmen.

Isn't this pretty much in keeping with the time lines identified throughout this process by MLSE? As such, is it really news? Not to be slowed by the lack of a lead, hook, or anything approaching interesting, Cox ploughs on:

Ask them and they'd tell you that doesn't matter, that they already have fabulous people in place to make all the necessary decisions. Of course, if that were the case, why would they be looking to hire people?

Wouldn't it be freakin' great if Cox actually picked up the phone and asked Richard Peddie or Cliff Fletcher his questions and then printed their actual responses instead of just imagining what their reply would be?

Can you imagine how refreshing it might be for a journalist to use their much vaunted access and professional training to bring the general fan some news?

Me either. And to quote Han Solo, "I can imagine quite a bit"

Cox says of my beloved leafs and their pursuit of a new President/GM:

Meanwhile, the rest of the hockey world snickers.

Ouch.

Oh Wait. Is this the same world that extended Jacques Martin’s contract, employed Doug MacLean and Mike Milbury, sent a huge offer sheet to Dustin Penner, paid Bobby Holik $9 million a year, refuses to move to no-touch icing, has a disciplinary program that’s about as consistent and logical as my two-year old son, and is embroiled in over-lapping law suits over Todd Bertuzzi?

That world?

Snicker away boys…

Wait, those of you who want to snicker should know that Cox has more, lots more:

Increasingly, the Leafs seem to be settling on a curious plan that will see Cliff Fletcher remain in charge until Brian Burke shakes free of Anaheim, whether that's next month or next year. In the meantime, the Leafs are attempting to lure good hockey men with obscure promises of jobs with no authority under Fletcher.

That's what they were offering former Vancouver GM Dave Nonis, and likely what they plan to throw at ex-Dallas GM Doug Armstrong when he comes to Toronto to meet with the Leaf brass this week.

“Obscure promises” “no authority” – according to whom? Where’s the source? Can we get a quote over here? Maybe even a third party? Anything to get me out of this world of pure imagination...

At least they were successful in getting permission from the Stars to talk to Armstrong, but that would be because owner Tom Hicks would love to get out from under the three years he still owes his former GM.

When the Leaf succeed - it's not of their doing; when they fail - it's all their fault.

See how this works?

If the Leafs ever win the cup (I'm thinking 2067 is our year) it will be because of the other teams' failures.

Unfortunately, Cox has more:

With those three years, of course, Armstrong can afford to be picky and why in the world would he accept anything less than full GM powers from a lousy team like the Leafs, particularly since his resume for the past decade is much more impressive than Fletcher's? Moreover, if the rumours in the hockey world yesterday were correct, the St. Louis Blues may beat the Leafs to the punch and offer Armstrong a job as GM-in-waiting as early as today.

Think about it. Would you rather work with John Davidson, Al MacInnis, Larry Pleau and Andy Murray with a closet-full of solid prospects in St. Louis, or labour under Richard Peddie in Toronto?

I’ve got an idea! To answer that question, let’s go back one whole paragraph and play a game of mad libs.

Cox wrote:
“With those three years, of course, Armstrong can afford to be picky and why in the world would he accept anything less than full GM powers from a lousy team like the _______, particularly since his resume for the past decade is much more impressive than _________’s?”

In my version, I replace the word "Leafs" with "Blues" and "Fletcher" with "Larry Pleau” and the answer is:

Why in the world would Armstrong accept anything less than full GM powers from a lousy team like the Blue's particularly since his resume for the past decade is much more impressive than Larry Pleau’s?

I'm guessing that answers Cox's question...

You'd think Cox, an editor, an intern or maybe a person wandering around the newsroom looking for a pen might have picked up on the fact that anyone that bothered to read Cox's copy would notice the gaping hole in Cox's logic - afterall, it is only one paragraph up.

Come to think of it, one would hope the senior hockey writer at a paper like the Toronto Star would:
a) re-read his work to remove poor reasoning/ circular logic
b) realize that GM openings are usually with teams that are “lousy” and;
c) “lousy” teams usually seek GMs that have had lots of success – usually more success than the men they are reporting to and replacing.

Despite this, sadly Cox continues his entry:

What Peddie would love, of course, is for Fletcher to remain in charge so he can keep his job title as president, having lost basketball responsibilities when Bryan Colangelo took over the Raptors. Its all about territorial protection in the corporate world.

The way I see it, Cox is either moonlighting on the MLSE cleaning staff to get insider information - just like Charlie Sheen in Wall Street. Or, Cox has found a way to transport himself right inside Richard Peddie’s cranium – just like “Being John Malkovich” I can think of no other explanation as to how Cox knows what Peddie would love.

If you ask me, I think Peddie would really just love an ice cream sandwich (but that type of insight is likely why the Star doesn't pay me to make stuff up).

Cox continues:

So unless Burke suddenly becomes available, the likeliest scenario appears to have Peddie remain as prez, Fletcher as interim GM and either one or more people without authority operating in a reconstituted hockey office.

Man, after reading this I really have no new insights and way more questions:

• Why would Fletcher's hires not have any authority?
• Why is it a “collection of great hockey minds” when other organizations load up their hockey staff, but it’s all “obscure promises” and “no authority” when it happens in Toronto?
• Did someone at MLSE run over Cox’s dog? Twice?
• How is it that Cox draws a pay cheque for this?
• How long until the Star changes his beat? (Please)
• What are the odds of the Star Sports department bringing in a fresh voice - one that doesn’t see failure, conspiracy and Machiavellian maneuvering in every move at the ACC?
• How long before the new President and GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs is torched by the media - will it even take minutes or will we have to measure it in nano-seconds?
• If this is the quality Cox brings to his blog, what's the value proposition?

Cox's final, ahem, "thought" on how things are allegedly developing down at MLSE:

Interesting but, as usual, utterly moronic.

And with that, I think Cox may have nailed the best six word summary of Damien Cox that ever was or will be.

This is epitaph material right here.

Lint trap v. ESPN

Last night I made the mistake of reading an ESPN magazine article by Adam Proteau (it was so painfully bad I'm not even going to post the link).

Supposedly it was about the state of the Leafs, but I could have learned more about MLSE and my beloved Blue and White by staring into the lint trap on my dryer for 12 to 15 minutes.

In addition to the lack of any original thought, insight, or quoted sources, Proteau included the requisite update into the angst level of Leafs Nation.

As a member of said nation and one who's feeling rather optimistic about all things Leaf at the moment, I sent Proteau an email asking how reporters always seem to know what Leaf fans are thinking/feeling.

Based on the frequency of this topic appearing in Leaf coverage, I can only conclude that the hockey media have secretly commissioned a statistically valid research study to gauge and track the feelings of Leafs Nation on a week by week (if not day by day) basis so they can report it back to us.

While I wait for Mr. Proteau's response to my email (not sure if that makes me Vladimir or Estragon) I thought I'd simplify things for both the media and Leaf fans everywhere by creating the Leafs Angst Metric (or LAMe)

Based on the United States Homeland Security Advisory Levels, the LAMe enables media types everywhere to free up a paragraph or two worth of space in their articles by simply stating that the angst level in Leafs Nation is orange or red.



Of note: the only time the LAMe will ever likely drop to green or LOW is in the 12 hours immediately following the Leafs winning the Stanley Cup. Exactly twelve hours and one minute after a Stanley Cup win, the media will automatically reset the angst level to Yellow.

Often Wrong, Never in Doubt

There is nothing wrong with being hopeful. There is no shame in being an optimist or leaving oneself open to the possibility of miracles.

Hope is why sports fans return season after season.

Hope is why we watch the games, even when we know the coach should be fired and the team has a 3% chance of making the post-season.

Hope is what fans do.

Hope is pretty much all that Leaf fans have.

Or, to take it all the way back Epictetus circa 600 B.C. (when the Leafs Stanley Cup drought was just days old): When Thales was asked what is most universal, he answered, hope - for hope stays with those who have nothing else.

While hope may indeed be universal and the mainstay of Leafs Nation, it is another thing altogether for the men who run our favourite teams to predicate their plans or strategies on little more than hope or the remote likelihood of something positive happening.

And for far too long down at MLSE it has seemed that hope was the cornerstone of this franchise: sign the high-risk UFA and hope for the best; trade for the goalie in decline and hope for a return to form; trade away draft pick after draft pick and hope it doesn't hobble the franchise; hope to make the post-season where anything can happen but seldom does...

There didn't seem to be any discussion or consideration of the underlying principles that are required to transform a team from also-ran to elite status. There didn't seem to be much transparency, understanding or commitment to the cultural and institutional requirements of building a team that could eventually challenge for the Cup.

And I, for one, am hoping that all of this has begun to change at MLSE.

Consider:
John Ferguson Junior - arguably one of the worst GMs in Leafs history: Fired
Paul Maurice - qualified for the post-season three years out of 11: Fired
Randy Ladoceur - assistant coach and special teams failure: Fired
Steve McKichan - Raycroft's goalie coach: Fired
Dallas Eakins - assistant coach: Demoted
Mike Penny - assistant GM: Demoted

And the reaction from the media to this great news? The media's response to the return of accountability to the Leafs?

Given that we can't seem to get any coverage in this town that doesn't mention 1967, MLSE's greed and the need for qualified hockey men to run the team one would think the media would react positively to this decisive leadership.

And you'd be wrong.





















Of course, the media's reaction has nothing to do with currying favour and maintaining access.

It has nothing to do with trying to secure future book deals and inside sources.

It has nothing to do with the fact that for the first time in a long time the Leafs are controlling the message and limiting leaks.

Apparently, the media's current round of disdain for all things Leaf has everything to do with the quality of the men who were fired.

You know, the same fine men that have managed to make the Leafs one of just seven teams that hasn't qualified for the post-season since the lockout.

The same fine men that traded away the majority of their first round picks and coached the Leafs into 24th spot in the NHL with a 29th ranked penalty kill.

The same fine men that have steered the ship during the last four or five years of foundering.

The same fine men that have ensured that I will not be able to open a sports page nor turn on TSN or Sportsnet without being reminded of 1967 and my favourite team's failings for years and years to come.

I for one am happy that these fine men are no longer around to make a mess of my team.

The lesson here is clearly that for every silver lining, the media will find the black cloud. All that's left to figure out is how Leaf fans are to blame for this one too.

###

I love the fact that the Leafs are simulcasting the media conferences on their web-site (Maurice is here, Fletcher is here). Nothing like being able to see a newser first hand to compare what was actually said with what gets reported.

Great big tip o' the hat to the Leafs PR department - I hope this is a service they'll continue to provide.

###

What the hell was Dave Perkins smoking last night? He thinks the Leafs timed the announcement of Paul Maurice's firing to hide the fact that Tannenbaum is going to make money off bringing the Bills to Toronto?

Um, Mr. Perkins, you may want to listen to the Prime Time Sports puff piece that ran last night. Bobcat did about 15 minutes live to air with Rogers Communications' Vice-Chairman Phil Lind and Rogers' Director of Strategic Alliances Adrian Montgomery, neither of whom could stop talking about the overwhelming demand for tickets, ticket prices and the sound of ringing cash registers down at the Rogers Centre. You may also want to open a portfolio account with Canada News wire. As a member of the media, I know these news releases are emailed and faxed directly to you, but you may have missed the fact that publicly traded companies LOVE to talk about new revenues from things like excessive demand for NFL tickets in Toronto.

###

And I'm rather late to the party here, but hockey reference has opened their site to sponsorships of team and players. Leaf Fans should know PPP is working on a master plan that's worth checking out...you can read more about it at Cox Bloc and Down Goes Brown.

Getting no place fast as we can

The Leafs have called a newser for 3 PM. I suspect it's to confirm that Paul Maurice has been fired as head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs, but other media are speculating it may be to announce a new GM.

###

It's telling that in firing Maurice, the biggest blow to this organization will be the loss of an occasionally amusing sound bite in the scrums. There certainly couldn't be a much worse outcome from behind the bench.

My complaints with Maurice are legion:

It was a rare thing for the team to be prepared, and far too often the team couldn't or wouldn't change the way they needed to play the game in order to win.

I disagreed with player development and his allocation of ice time, pointed out bad line match-ups, more stupid player personnel decisions and the team's failure to learn from past late game mistakes. Then there was the whole strange l'affiare Wozniewski. Come March, I finally had enough with the coaching of this club. And then there's Maurice's strange approach to the shoot-out.

If you don't want to read my typos, just consider the Leafs 2007-2008 results:

Team discipline: 4th overall in Times Shorthanded
Power Play: 15th
Penalty Kill: 29th
5th in the North East
12th in the Eastern Conference
24th overall

###

Much has been written, said, yelled, slurred and forgotten about the competitive advantage MLSE's deep pockets should give the Leafs.

While the organization is constrained to the rules of the CBA and the salary cap on the ice (just like all 29 teams they compete with) off the ice the Leafs' near bottomless resources should give the organization a clear cut advantage. And it's an advantage that I really want to see exploited.

There is no reason that this club shouldn't be directing every available resource to ensure they have the best coaching, scouting, training, and player development staff.

Looking at the results from behind the bench these last few years, it's clear that this was not the case with Maurice and his crew.

With the coaching post vacated, there's one more piece of business cleared away for an incoming GM.

I can't wait to see who Peddie, Kirke and the MLSE gang have decided on.

###

Tomorrow's media circus should make for fascinating reading. Who will defend Maurice to cultivate a source? Will this be positioned as more floundering from MSLE? If Bob Gainey were doing the firing instead of Cliff Fletcher, would this be another genius decision led by a powerful (or was it "determined") jaw? Hopefully this inspires Tart Cider to do another round of hockey commentariat interpretation.