You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

There are numerous reasons I no longer read the sports pages, but the biggest one has to be the pathetic signal to noise ratio. And good old Damien Cox has added yet more noise to the system.

Cox writes (big hat tip to uber Leaf site PPP who save me from having to actually read through this stuff ):

It continues to blow my mind that some insist Mats Sundin "owed" the Leafs the chance to trade him last winter and get draft picks and prospects for him.

Here’s what he owed the Leafs.

He owed them a willingness to play hard under the terms of his contract, to play through injuries, to provide solid leadership, to put points on the board and to set an example for young players. His job was to fulfill his playing contract, period.

To wallow in these ill-conceived, illogical past grievances against the player who was the team’s best for more than a decade is to demean not only him, but the franchise and the sport.

That's all well and good I suppose. I mean, it's not like Cox ever pursues any angles that might demean the Leafs' franchise - oh, wait..well, it's not like Cox was one of the journos who thought the Leaf's rights should be put ahead of Mats Sundin.

Unless of course you were to go to the Leafs TV site and search their video feeds for Fletcher's January 22nd press conference and maybe fast forward to the 17:49 mark. Because if you did that, you might just get to hear Damien Cox ask for a follow-up question about a certain Mr. Sundin (you know, the one who should have his rights come first. The one who didn't owe the Leafs the opportunity to trade him):

Cox: "You said, 'The most important thing is to do what's right for Mats.' Isn't the most important thing to do what's right for the Toronto Maple Leafs? First, ahead of Mats?"
Fletcher: "That's right Damien, but Mats is driving the engine here. He's an unrestricted free agent at the end of the year and he has a no-trade clause."
[long, awkward silence]

That exchange made an appearance in Cox's January 23rd column:

When it came to the possible trading of Sundin, Fletcher said: "The most
important thing is to do what's right for Mats." Questioned further as to
whether it wasn't more vital to do what was best for the hockey club, Fletcher
said: "Mats is driving the engine here."

Well, at least we know who's in charge.

That last line is a smug thing of beauty isn't it? Had Damien just let it alone, those first four lines of his column just wouldn't have that je ne sais quoi of sanctimony and disingeniousness that only Cox can deliver.

How great is it to be able to take shots like that and then 13 months later argue the other side?

Hypocrisy: reason number 1,834 that I longer turn to the sports pages for any insight into the game I love.

Welcome to the Jungle

Thanks to mapleleafs.com the Burke newser is up and available for your viewing pleasure.

What a nice way to get your Leafs news: unfiltered and without the imaginsitcal stylings of Berger and his limo driver, Simmons and his team of crack orthopedic consultants, and Cox and his inner (and outer) demons.

A few things to watch/consider:

• Peddie's slip when he says financial instead of family (I have a feeling he does that with all "f" words)
• Burke's entire performance especially his tremendous, splendorous, amazing use of adjectives (I lost count).
• Just two questions from the media, which I suspect that has more to do with timing as Burke was queued up to do a pile of one-on-one media interviews right after his remarks. Of the two, the Star's Kevin McGran wastes one by asking Burke to assess Fletcher's trades to date - what's he gonna say, "Gee, that Hollwegg deal is a real head scratcher."
• Bob McKenzie's morning column at TSN is like a transcript of this thing, talk about nailing it.

Something I Learned Today

The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of the truth - that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one. - H.L. Mencken

When it comes to going public with bad news, there are two types of organizations:

1. Those that deal with it in an open and transparent manner – Tylenol is the oft-cited prototype in this camp and, much more recently, Maple Leaf Meats have shown the merit of being open, honest and accountable.
2. Those who leak, bury or misdirect the news in an effort to control the message.

I’d say my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs usually fall into slot #2.

And what are some of the best tactics to get in front of a bad news story?

1. Release it late on the Friday of a long-weekend;
2. Release it when there’s a lot of other bad news in the system; and/or
3. Leak the bad news early and leak it often – by the time the news becomes official or confirmed, most people will have moved through the five stages of grief from anger to acceptance.

When it comes to the Bryan McCabe trade, the Leafs have gone for door number 3 like the RIAA going after a 12 year old with a USB drive full of Jonas Brothers mp3s and the outcome, strangely, seems to be acceptance.

What’s that Smell?

The first time I went to Kamloops I was visiting an old friend who had just gotten engaged.

Kamloops stunk. Figuratively and literally.

The town is essentially a bowl built around a pulp mill. The scent of reduced sulphurs permeates everything.

The first few days I was in town, I kept asking my friend how he could live in a place that, um, stank. I don't mean to be cruel, but everything was tinted with the malodorous combination of cabbage and rotten eggs.

But then a strange thing happened: the smell seemed to go away. I no longer spent my days with a crinkled nose and worried brow wondering how people live among such a paralyzing stink.

Except the smell never went away.

The town still stunk of the by-products of supplying the world with 477,000 tonnes of pulp related products.

I just lost my ability to detect the stench.

Scientists call this phenomena olfactory adaptation or olfactory fatigue. Our nervous systems are programmed to automatically desensitize to certain stimuli so that we are not overloaded. For example, our skin doesn't constantly sense our clothing and our noses eventually get used to the gagging stink of pulp.

By turning down a response to certain or constant stimuli our bodies are better able to recognize and respond to new stimuli/possible threats.

If you've made it this far and are still reading, you may be asking yourself what pulp products, bad odours and olfactory adaptation have to do with the Leafs.

Stick with me here...

In Leaf Land it's not Pulp, it’s the Stench of Failure

I wonder if maybe Leafs Nation is undergoing a massive case of olfactory adaptation.

That we've become so used to the smell in these parts that they don't notice it anymore.

Slam McCabe all you want. Link to the youtube compilation videos of his various gaffes. Mock his haircuts, goofy faces and penchant for taking dumb penalties.

Go ahead and cringe at the burden of his no-movement clause.

But then step back and look at the numbers.

Three out of the last five seasons, McCabe was among the top 10 in scoring by a defenseman; three times he finished in the top three for goals.

Believe it or not, McCabe placed third in Norris trophy voting in 2004 and ninth in 2006.

He cracked the taxi squad for the 2006 Canadian Olympic squad. Bitch and moan all you want that he wasn’t in the top six on that club, but to be on the Canadian Olympic team is to be among some pretty elite company.

Despite all of these accomplishments and accolades, McCabe’s no-movement clause has allegedly so diminished his value that the Leafs had to include a draft pick in order to complete the deal.

Bottom line: the return for a number 2 d-man, power play quarterback, who can log 20+ minutes a night, who has a history of finishing in the top 10 in scoring (and who occasionally scores in the wrong net) is nothing more than a 3-4 d-man who’s recovering from multiple wrist surgeries.

And the Leafs had to throw in a 4th round pick to get the deal done.

As Steve points out in his latest entry, and as I posted earlier this summer, the trade does nothing to solve the Leafs' log-jam on D where they're approaching the season with nine NHL caliber defencemen (10 if you think Schenn might get more than a cup of coffee with the big club).

Anyone that hasn't been living under a rock can tell you that the Leafs don't need more D; they don't need cap flexibility; they don't need to shed more draft picks.

And yet, that's what they get for a top pairing d-man.

The Toronto Maple Leafs: A Rich History of Horrible Asset Management

I cannot believe that I’m going to cite Damien Cox here, but he has a point (ick). The Leafs have moved a pretty big chunk of talent/assets off their roster in the last few years. Consider:

• Belfour
• Domi
• Tucker
• Wellwood
• Rask===>Raycroft (should have been ===>ECHL but for the Avs)
• McCabe

All gone for nothing more than Mike Van Ryn and a series of lingering cap hits.

If shedding all of those players for nothing weren't bad enough, Fletcher has spent even more assets to spackle over the same holes:

• Mayers for a third round pick
• Grabovski for a second round pick
• Schenn for a second and third round pick
• a Fourth round pick to kiss McCabe goodbye

Changing the Culture: Buying High and Selling Low

I understand that management is trying to change the so-called culture of this club.

They gassed the coach (could only talk a good game), waived Wellwood (uncommitted, soft); bought-out Tucker (washed-up, psychopathic) and bought-out Raycroft (glove hand not good enough for mite T-ball).

But I’d argue that the real cultural change is far more urgently needed in the executive corridors of MLSE than in the locker room.

When Fletcher first came back to the Leafs, it was with a real sense of confidence. I loved his candid approach to assessing the team. I loved the moves he made at the trade deadline. I thought PM had to go and Wilson was a pretty solid replacement.

And then things regressed back to the norm. This team has a long twisted tradition of buying high and selling low, a philosophy that, once again, has stained all of Fletcher’s moves this summer.

The Leafs' story remains too many assets out the door with too little to show for it.

And the McCabe trade is just one more deal where the Leafs come out on the losing end.

Fletcher said last Tuesday: "Trying to build a team can't be fast-tracked."

He may be right, but he's demonstrating that it sure can be chronically mismanaged.

Memo to the Star: Fire Cox and I'll take a 7 Day Subscription

Generally hated American sports columnis Jay Mariotti quit the Chicago Sun-Times this week (likely setting the record for the all-time shortest resignation letter, an email that said: "I quit").

How did local sports fans react to the news?

By taking out subscriptions to the paper...a fact that the Sun-Times marketing people jumped all over. Here's the rather brilliant banner headline from the Sun-Times:

At a time when newspapers are allegedly dying, here's a simple business model that is guaranteed to put the circulation numbers through the roof: fire Damien Cox and I'll take out a five day subscription to the Star. Throw in DiManno and I'll make it a multi-year, seven day commitment and I'll encourage every member of Leafs nation to do the same.

The Print Measurement Bureau won't know what hit them.

ht: deadspin

Maple Leafs: Are the Fans to Blame?

There’s an interesting cross-post up between Pension Plan Puppets and Down Goes Brown regarding an abominable article by Howard Berger (I’m not sending any traffic to the Bergermeister Meister Berger's blog so you’ll have to locate the article yourself. Hint: it’s really not worth giving him the page views).

Here’s the money quote from Working Class Howard:

“Leaf fanatics constantly bitch about the likes of Damien Cox and Steve Simmons, only to make them the most widely-read columnists in the city… The same Leaf zealots that call me a rotten bastard in e-mails are the first to wonder where my blog is if I skip a day.”

I don’t know what’s happened to Howard, if it was the Avery Cancer thing, his having to buy a ticket to a Cowboys game with his own money while the team he covers for a living – the horrible terrible no good loosing Leafs, millionaires all of ‘em, were treated to a luxury box or if the rise of user-created content, such as blogs and message boards, has resulted in an increased scrutiny that’s too much for the error-prone radio man to bear.

No matter the cause, someone has poisoned the water in poor Howard’s well.

It’s the Love of the Team, Stupid.

Howard's certainly right in that there is an insatiable demand for all things Leaf. And he’s also right in that it’s Leaf fans that make Cox and Simmons two of the most read columnists in Canada.

Where he’s wrong is in implying that the likes of Simmons, Cox and McCown are the most read/watched/listened to because of any special skills or abilities or even their penchant to stir the pot.

These guys are widely read because they file on the Leafs.

Full stop.

If it was Cox and not the content that pulled in readership, his Wimbledon columns would be among the most read at the Star. But when he files on tennis or the Argos you can hear the crickets chirping between his paragraphs.

If it was Berger and not the leafs that drove the numbers, Howard could blog about Montreal limousine companies day and night and still get 200 comments a post.

It's a tough question, but where would Berger be without the Leafs?

Turning the Sites on the Fans

This is where it gets a little tricky.

It was one thing when the mediots went after Ballard, Stavro or MLSE – targets that were (and are) clearly worthy of media scorn - from Ballard’s personal vendettas to Stavro’s cash crunch dismantling of the team to MLSE’s alleged meddling and hiring of JFJ (ugh).

But it’s another thing entirely to go after Leaf fans.

Let’s be clear about this.

The fans have nothing to do with how sports teams ultimately perform (Coyotes, Predators, Capitals, Black Hawks, Islanders and hell, even Jays fans, are staying away in droves. How’s that working out for them? How many Championships have they lined up in the past decade or two?)

The fans don’t make bad trades for questionable goaltending.

The fans don’t decide who gets top minutes on the PK.

The fans don’t sit at the draft table or have input into player development.

And the fans don’t have much of a say in how the media covers the team.

As far as I know, Leaf fans also don’t have editorial positions at any of the major media outlets in this country.

The fans don’t write the articles and columns praising the team when it goes on a middling win streak and the same fans don’t write the columns and articles claiming the sky is falling when the Leafs go on their annual losing streak each January/February.

The fans don’t program the radio stations around call-in shows.

The fans don’t file blog posts based on emails read after a weekend away in Niagara (nice job, Howie).

There’s a great quote from political circles: “Any party that takes credit for the rain, ought to be prepared to be blamed for the drought.”

When the Leafs finally win a cup (and odds are that they will – eventually, maybe not for 100 years, but eventually) will the media let Leaf fans take the credit after decades of blame?

I doubt it.

Re-shaping the Leafs Media Environment

Howie’s bizarre-o world rant brings to mind the whole issue of information dissemination in this age of blogs, discussion boards, media convergence and really good artisanal salami (sorry, my mind drifted there back to my brief holiday in Seattle).

Given the craptacular job done by most of the media contingent following the Leafs, you'd think that fans would be flocking to the official leafs site. They may be, but the blogs I read aren't, I'm not, and I've never had a water-cooler conversation where someone referenced the Leafs web-page (Cox, Simmons and Berger - yes; TorontoMapleLeafs.com - no).

So, in the spirit of Berger’s odd-post, my rather boring communications consulting day job and the fact that no one I know, including MLSE, is properly using the Leafs web-page, here are ten ways the Leafs could revamp LeafsTV, update their web-presence and easily provide more viable, unfiltered and interesting alternative information for their fans and reduce/supplant the role of the increasingly adversarial, cranky and ineffective media:

1. Continue to post unedited news conferences in their entirety (yes, even the inane media questions) on the Leafs Web-site.
   
2. Increase the amount of first-person reporting on Leafs-TV and cross-post it to mapleleafs.com. Why not a weekly (or better yet, every other day) news interview with one of Fletcher, Jackson, Nieuwendyk, Gilmour, scouts, new players, coaches, assistant coaches, capologists, trainers, equipment managers – you name it (Steve Paikan is a big Leafs fan and a great interviewer – let’s give him the part-time gig).
   
3. Conduct more round-table discussions on Leaf topics with players, coaches, reporters, authors and hockey “experts” to be carried on Leafs TV and cross-posted to mapleleafs.com
   
4. Revamp the “Leafs Insider” newsletter to provide balanced informed insightful content and strive to make it more timely (the Leafs dealt for Hollweg and announced their intention to add two more players yesterday, yet I’ve got nothing from my Leafs Insider email newsletter. Nada. Zilch.)
   
5. Cancel the “Leafs Nation” magazine and put the resources into real-time electronic coverage of the team (was anyone out there aware of this magazine? Any of you ever read it?) News cycles are way too short for a long-lead magazine to be relevant or of interest to today’s fans (case in point: you can read about Paul Maurice and get tips from Kyle Wellwood in the latest issue - for those who are interested, Mr. Wellwood's advice is on how to take a pass, not the secrets of a successful all-you-can-eat buffet).
   
6. Get rid of the cronies. Want better coverage on Leafs TV? Fire/ reduce the number of former Leaf players/ barbie-like hostesses and add more insightful/ neutral commentators.
   
7. Hire better bloggers. This is what MLSE is offering fans? Really? That's an official TML blog? Cripes. Has no one at MLSE read Mirtle, MC79, Behind the Net, Fire Joe Morgan, Basketball Jones, Pensblog, etc.
   
8. Take advantage of digital media and make it entertaining. These guys have got it figured out – why can’t MLSE do something like this at the prospect camp? Who wouldn't want to see Luke Schenn take on Kulemin at Jenga or Hungry Hungry Hippos?
   
9. MLSE should be considering the power of Open Data Exchange - opening, hosting and reflecting (and very carefully filtering/refining) the flow of Leafs information that's out there. To wit: "“The winners won’t be those that control the most data — the winners will be those that channel the most data — and those that create the most value on top of the data flow.”
   
10. Quietly seek extraordinary rendition for any writer, blogger, copy desk editor that uses a plan the parade joke.

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.

Nine Tips for Media Types

I really appreciate the quality of the comments on this site, they often make me stop and think.

Case in point: The feedback on my Cox post deserved a response and my comment mushroomed into this (rather long) post.

I think we'd all agree that there certainly couldn't be much more Leafs coverage. There are upwards of 30 reporters covering the Leafs. To put that in perspective, the entire media contingent covering Queen's Park (the Province of Ontario's legislature) is just 31 journalists.

In addition to having their own TV channel, the Leafs are the lead item on each and every TSN and Sportsnet broadcast. Each paper has columnists and staff reporters covering the team. There are lunch time radio broadcasts devoted to all things blue and white. And then there's the comments at the Globe and Mail, filled by people who seem to spend more time complaining about the amount of Leaf coverage than they do cheering for their own teams.

So the quantity is unarguably there, but the quality side seems to be a bit lacking. How hard is it for a reporter or editorial staff to use a search function to scan the NHL CBA? How many times are reporters going to miss that both Tucker and McCabe have NMCs? If the media are unsure about a no-movement clause, why not phone the NHLPA, the agent or ask the player? Isn't that one of the benefits of being a trained professional with full access to sources?

That said, I do feel some sympathy for the media who cover the Leafs. There's so much media competition in this town (and with this team) that I can't imagine the pressure they're under from their editors and producers to cultivate sources and land big scoops.

I think this combination of editorial pressure and competitive media marketplace is the big reason that Cox has been publicly fellating JFJ in so many of his columns. Cox knows Ferguson will eventually land on his feet in the NHL and, if Cox has laid on enough adjectives, he may have cultivated an inside source in Ferguson - one that will be very helpful in fueling Cox with plenty of material for his faux-indignation-fueled tirades against MLSE.

That or Cox is looking to land his next book deal and has JFJ in his sites (admittedly, Cox did file a pretty solid piece in yesterday's paper).

Still, given the pressures and competition, it's hard to believe the amount of misinformation, poor fact checking and general lack of imagination that permeates so much of the Leafs media coverage. I'd like to think with their access, the reporters who file day in day out on all things Leaf might be able to come up with something more compelling then who's wearing the red jersey at practice, fake trade rumours or faux panic over the lack of formal job interviews conducted by MLSE.

Rather than just bitch and moan about the state of Leaf coverage and without much thought (like most of my posts) here are 9 ideas, off the top of my head, that I'd love to see followed-up by those who cover hockey and/or the Leafs:

1. More first person source reporting. This was one of my favourite articles last year - a Brian Burke first-person diary during the trade deadline. Could we get something similar from anyone at MLSE? Please? If not, I'd settle for any first-person insight at the GM level.
   
2. Use your access to really take readers behind the scenes. The consensus is the Leafs need to hold on to their draft choices and draft wisely. Can fans maybe get a profile (or two or three) of the Leaf scouts that will be helping make the decisions on draft day? What gems have they discovered? What do their peers on other clubs think of them? What's the hierarchy in the scouting department and how do draft day decisions get made? Maybe a day in the life of a Leaf scout...or a day in the life of a top OHL prospect. Gare Joyce's work on this was great stuff and surely demonstrated there's an audience for it. Wouldn't it be nice to get a bit more on these kids than Don Cherry and four or five of the top ranked 18 year olds passing around a microphone during a 45 second spot on HNIC?
   
3. Stop telling us what Leaf fans think. Leafs Nation is not a homogeneous entity and does not think with one mind. Even if Leaf fans did all agree, would anyone care? Moreover, it's a lazy literary device at best and completely misleading at worse.
   
4. Help the fans get insights from the coaches. The Leafs have the worst PK in the league and it's killing them. When was the last time anyone saw an interview with the special teams coach, or even with Maurice, where the Leafs approach to the PK was analyzed? What's working, what's not? Compare and contrast the Leafs' approach by interviewing special team coaches on more successful clubs. (And it doesn't have to be just the PK. There's the whole issue of zone v. man-to-man defence; team toughness/ use of enforcers; the shoot-out; power play; adapting to opponents; etc.)
   
5. Less of the trade rumour BS. Before the trade deadline there were, what, maybe 4 trades in the NHL? Yet every columnist weighs in with trade rumour after trade rumour, none of which come true and none of which advance a story of any relevance. (And can someone fine Dreger every time he uses the questionable at best "Sources are saying..." approach. If he had to put a twoonie in a jar for every time he used it he could make a hefty-donation to a worthy cause.)
   
6. More long form player profiles please. Joe O'Connor has being doing this masterfully with retired players over at the National Post, why not do it with the current or retired Leafs? (Or how about an update on Boyd Devereaux's record label?)
   
7. Help demistify the CBA. This is one of the best posts I've seen on the matter, it's by a blogger and it's over a year old. Why can't newsrooms create similar content? How about top 10 CBA myths (e.g. players with NMC can't be bought out; injured players don't count against the cap; etc.). Since the signing of the CBA has the frequency of offer sheets to RFAs increased? What steps can clubs take to protect their RFAs (e.g. team initiated arbitration)? With Wellwood and Stajan as the Leafs main RFAs, what odds do agents and other insiders give that another club will tender them a contract? How does the fact that the Leafs traded their second round pick to Phoenix for (gulp!) Perreault, limit their ability to tender RFA offer sheets?
   
8. More on the Big Picture. Where does Leafs management sit on the the Moneyball vs. "Intangibles" spectrum? I've read great stuff about the San Jose Sharks and Columbus Blue Jackets innovative use of statistics. What are the Leafs up to? What do they make of this? On another topic: how does player development work, why is Buffalo so amazing at it and what are the Marlies doing to help develop Leaf prospects?
   
9. More on the Business of Sport: What has the impact of moving the farm club to Toronto been? What do players who played both in St. John's and at the Ricoh think of the move? Crunch the numbers - what has it meant for the salary cap being able to send guys across the street? Has it had any impact on the Leafs ability to recruit and retain management? With precedents in Chicago and Philadelphia is this a model we should expect to see more of? How does the Leafs system compare with clubs that don't have their own AHL affiliate? On-glass advertising, are the Leafs for or against? Same goes with advertising on jerseys, where does MLSE stand?

As Leaf/hockey fans, I'd love to know what stories do you think we're missing out on and what type of coverage would you like to see more of?

If you were the editor/producer for a day what would you tell your reporters to work on?

Are there any guys out there who stand out? Anyone a must-read for you?

I'd walk on the water in your dad's swimming pool...

The Leafs haven’t interviewed a single candidate for the President/GM job, despite having fired JFJ back on January 22.

This comes as no surprise to me.

While I'm no expert on the inner workings of NHL level executive recruitment, I would guess that the vast majority of candidates for the Leafs post are currently under contract with other NHL clubs. Not only does their current contractual status preclude them from being interviewed by MLSE, any reasonable person would also realize that these prospective candidates are a little more focused on their respective team's cup run than interviewing with Peddie and Kirke.

That little bit of logic appears to be of very little interest to Damien Cox, who vomits up 632 words on the fact that the Leafs haven’t conducted any formal interviews for the President/GM post.

According to Cox,

What was a surprise, however, was that Peddie made it clear that he, and the team, don't believe time is of the essence when it comes to hiring a new hockey czar…and the Leafs seem content with the possibility that the "hunt" could linger into July or August.

Can you believe the gumption of MLSE? They’re actually willing to let a month, maybe two, pass between the awarding of the Stanley Cup and the hiring of their next President and GM.

I don’t know about Damien, but if I were looking to make the most important hire my organization has ever faced, I’d certainly want to rush things. I certainly would want to be beholden to false deadlines.

Cox continues:

In two months, no candidates have been interviewed – wouldn't now be a good time to chat with unemployed types like Doug Armstrong or Neil Smith, highly regarded individuals like Hockey Canada's Bob Nicholson or even NHL executive Colin Campbell?

Hmm. It seems to me Cox was front and centre at a certain press conference when MLSE identified the criteria of their next GM. Peddie clearly said (or maybe he just moved his lips and someone else said it) all GM candidates must have prior experience running an NHL club (so long Campbell, no dice Nicholson) and ideally should have won at the NHL level (so much for Armstong).

That leaves Neil Smith.

The man who claims he invented fantasy hockey.

A man who hasn’t had a GM job for a decade (unless you count his 3 weeks on Long Island).

Can you imagine the indignation Cox would muster up for his column if Neil Smith were ever mentioned as a front runner for the Leafs? Oy gevalt.

Back to Cox:

It would have made far more sense for Peddie to declare that an aggressive hunt is on, every possibility is being examined and a new executive saviour will definitely be in place by the entry draft to begin charting a more productive future.

Let’s do some math on this one.

The playoffs will likely wrap up the first week in June.

The entry draft is June 21.

If Peddie were to do what Cox recommends, the Leafs would have, at most, two weeks to interview, negotiate with and ultimately sign their new President/GM. Never mind the time required to get the appropriate permissions to interview and dealing with any other contractual issues.

Does anyone, other than Cox, think this is remotely realistic?

Maybe Leaf fans could chip in a couple of bucks and order up Damien some remedial help so that he can learn to pick-up the phone and call an actual source. I'd love to know what any executive recruiting firm worth it's salt would have to say about procuring a top executive and having them signed sealed and delivered in 10 business days or less.

Yet, that's not only what Cox thinks MLSE should be doing, he's openly castigating them in print for their failure to do so.

What would it take to satisfy this guy?

I also love this aside in Cox's column:

It's worth noting here that the three stars of last night's game were Anton Stralman, Jiri Tlusty and Nik Antropov. Stralman and Tlusty were drafted under Ferguson's leadership, while the contracts of Antropov ($2 million U.S.), goalie Vesa Toskala ($3 million) and defenceman Tomas Kaberle ($4.25 million) were all negotiated by JFJ and are the most salary cap-effective deals the team has.

Funny how Cox fails to mention the other half of that equation. How the NTC5 and the mediocre play of Blake, Raycroft, Wozniewski – all with contracts negotiated by JFJ - were the least salary-cap effective deals the team has and a big reason why JFJ no longer has a job.

Cox concludes:

So while Peddie was ostensibly doing damage control, all it really did was make it abundantly clear that the dazed and confused Leafs are pursuing the future with continued maximum dysfunction as their guide.

Uh, sure Damien. Whatever you say buddy.

Far be it from me to defend MLSE (I'm going to need a shower after typing this) but taking an additional month to hire the one person that this entire organization and fan base will be putting their faith in is the wrong thing to do?

The right thing to do is to commit to a ten day window to find their saviour?

If that’s how Cox defines "dysfunctional" I wonder what's the apt adjective to describe the Toronto Star’s newsroom and Cox’s ability to churn this stuff out for nearly 20 years?

###

For those of you interested in the “PR efforts” Cox refers to, there’s an excellent six minute, 40 second clip of Elliot Friedman interviewing Richard Peddie from Saturday’s CBC game. To view it, surf over to here, click on the “search” option, type in Peddie and Inside Hockey,March 29 should be your top option. (Hopefully, your video feed won’t buffer as badly as mine. And if you do watch, put yourself in Peddie's shoes when he's asked about the Habs marketing efforts with Grade 5 students - I hate that f*cker Peddie with a passion, but he gets full marks for not falling off his seat and laughing at Friedman over that line of questioning.)

Waivers v. Buy-Outs (with a small update)

I thought I was watching NHL Classics last night, a repeat from last January when the Leafs beat the Bruins 10-4. (As an aside, I actually managed to see that that game via sopcast whilst eating paranthas and drinking chai at a very early breakfast in Hyderabad, India. It's a very odd feeling when an NHL game finishes at 9 AM.)

Here's a bit of a quirky factoid: the same day that the Leafs pasted the Bruins 10-4, the Canadian Juniors beat the US in the semis when Carey Price stopped Peter Mueller in the shoot-out.

Fast forward 14 months and on the night that the Leafs paste the Bruins for a second time, Price bests Mueller again in their first match-up since that World Junior shoot-out game.

Buyouts? Really?!?

I'm not sure why there's been so much talk about the Leafs buying out various players. Wharnsby was guilty of this in yesterday's Globe, it's a talking point in Cox's most recent mailbag and it was a featured element of Steve's (otherwise great) blog entry on how he'd re-build the Leafs.

Buy-outs have become bit of a zombie issue to me - no matter how many times you think you've killed them, they just keep coming back.

So long as there's such a thing as the waiver wire, there's no reason to buy-out anyone on this team - with the exception of players with a NMC.

Full stop.

There's no reason for the Leafs to take any type of long-term cap hit to dispose of Blake, Bell, Raycroft, Kubina (take your pick of 90% of the roster) when those players can be placed on waivers (obviously, a trade would be the preferred method but if a guy won't waive his NTC, the waiver wire it is.)

Here's how the waiver wire works:

If another club claims a player off the waiver wire, that team takes on 100% of the salary and 100% of the cap hit. The Leafs are free and clear of the player, the salary and the cap implications.

If the player goes unclaimed, the Leafs then have two options:

1. Pay the player their salary to play in the AHL (or ECHL if it's Raycroft).

Under this option, the Leafs do have to pay their salary, but if the player is playing in the minors, the team takes zero cap hit (zip; nada; zilch). MLSE has deep deep pockets so I don't think this will be too much of a problem.

2. The Leafs can also recall an unclaimed waived player with the rather large caveat that the player has to clear waivers a second time (re-entry waivers). Under this option, if the player is claimed on re-entry by another team, the Leafs are on the hook for 50% of their salary (and 50% of the cap hit) for the duration of that player's contract. This is what Pittsburgh did with Recchi (now with Atlanta) and Chicago did with Samsonov (now with Carolina).

So waivers or buy-outs?

Let's take Raycroft as an example.

If the Leafs buy-out his contract, under the CBA the Leafs must pay Rayzor 2/3rds of his remaining contract, paid out over twice the remaining length of the deal.

Raycroft, with one year remaining on a $2 million contract (nice work JFJ!), would be paid $2MM x.66 /2 or $660,000 for two years with the Leafs carrying that $660K cap hit for two seasons as well.

Factor in a replacement back-up goaltenders salary - say Pogge at $638 - and the Leafs are stuck with a cap hit of $1.3M for back-up goaltending.

The buy-out creates $700K in cap space.

If they waive Raycroft, the Leafs pay $638K for back-up goaltending and take a cap hit of $638K for back-up goaltending.

The waiver wire creates $1.36 million in cap space.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

***Update***

As I was on my way to a lunch meeting it struck me that buy-outs vs. waivers might just be the key to understanding this franchise.

Consider: a buy-out hinders the Leafs by saddling the team with a multi-year cap hit, but it ultimately saves MLSE money and funnels more dollars towards their bottom line.

A waived player makes things better for the Leafs but costs MLSE a lot more dough.

Based on that very basic and rather simplistic viewpoint, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if this club waives players, MLSE may not be the greedy, bottom-line first franchise as so many detractors claim.

Conversely, if they pursue buy-outs instead of waivers, it certainly suggests that the bottom line comes before doing whatever it takes to help the Leafs win.

Competing Interests?

Ack! Yesterday my blog entry was remarkably similar to Damien Cox's entry at the Spin. I'm not sure I'm down with this particular piece of synchronicity.

But Cox's column, Paul's comments on my blog entry and Paul Hunter's item in Today's Star all raise an interesting point: at what point does the organization put long-term interests ahead of the short-term W and L columns?

Now, before the tank brigade arrives (and while the rest of us wait for Darren Dreger to finish sounding out these multi-syllabic words) let me be clear: I'm not talking about anyone throwing games; I am not suggesting any player give anything less than 100%; I am not recommending a coach, player or anyone at MLSE take any action that brings the integrity of the team, league or sport into question (like, I don't know, the LA Kings recalling and actually playing Dan Cloutier).

I'm just wondering at what point Fletcher or someone at MLSE clues in and says it's time for Tlusty and Williams to have a regular shift, in all three periods and in all game situations. It's time to see Stralman on the PP, PK and ES. It's time to shut down the injured and infirm and to recall Earl. It's time for Toskala to take a well deserved night off and for Raycroft to see if he can keep his save percentage close to the .800s (or maybe even higher).

And while I'm completely and thoroughly convinced this club can't and won't make the playoffs, the last time the Leafs changed-up the goalies and gave the kids a chance, the team went 10 and 2 down the stretch.

As a Leaf fan, it sure would be nice to see the kids play so we can get a sense of what the future might hold. It would be great to get injured players off the ice and start getting them ready to play next year when it actually matters, and it sure wouldn't hurt to have a better shot in the draft lottery this summer.

Just Like Punch

Today's column by Damian Cox hits a new low, even for him.

The Maple Leafs just never learn their lesson.

There is no other way to assess the second coming of Cliff Fletcher.

Yup. No single other way to assess a hiring that is less than 24 hours old. No insights to be gathered, no other perspectives to be considered. What you saw at a 30 minute news conference is all that you need to know. Don't wait for any trades or any actual activities from Fletcher - it's over.

Fletcher, history tells us, left the cupboard nearly bare in 1997 because he had traded away young players (Vince Damphousse, Kenny Jonsson), made poor draft selections (Brandon Convery, Eric Fichaud, Jeff Ware) and sacrificed first-round draft picks to acquire high-priced veteran assistance.

Fletcher, history tells us, also pulled off two of the best trades in Leaf history (Gilmour and later, Sundin) landing arguably one of the best skaters to ever wear a Leaf sweater.

History tells us that Fletcher resuscitated a moribund franchise in record time.

History also tells us that, fresh off a Stanley Cup win in Calgary, Fletcher built Leaf club that went to the Conference Finals twice and was a blown high-sticking call away from a Stanley Cup Final.

History may tell us lots of things, but you won't find them in an article by Cox.

Now, in the salary cap era, he's embracing a new religion.

"Without that core of young players you're going to be in a continuing struggle," he said.

But really, that was the case before the salary cap, as well. The impatient Fletcher just didn't want to play by those rules.

Really? The Avalanche shed lots of young talent for vets to build their cup winners. Detroit too. How many players on the '94 Rangers were part of a young core? In the pre-cap big salary days, wasn't it more a case of Fletcher not having to play by those rules?

I swear, had Cox been writing for the Calgary Herald back in '89, he would have led his column on the Flames' Cup victory by bemoaning the loss of Brett Hull.

That an honest man of integrity, Ferguson, was lied to and treated unprofessionally here matters not to the mandarins of MLSE.

Too true. Bet let's also not confuse kindness, integrity and character with competence.

Put another way, there are two types of failure: failures of character and failures of talent. Clearly, Ferguson failed on the talent front and deserved to be fired. Words that somehow didn't make it into Mr. Cox's column.

Moreover, why is it that Cox is all to happy to point out Imlach's and Fletcher's propensity to deal away picks, but forgets to mention that JFJ has dealt away three first rounders and four second rounders in just fiver years as GM.

Then, unlike the gutless Pat Quinn, Ferguson stayed to face the media music and chose to blame no one. A good man, that Ferguson. He's respected in the industry and already a hot commodity.

I sure hope JFJ is a hot commodity and is a GM in this league ASAP, it's the only way the Leafs will ever get rid of Raycroft.

...Fletcher will guide the Leafs through the minefield leading up to the Feb. 26 trade deadline, into this year's entry draft and then into the summer's free agent season.

He could do a lot of good.

Or a lot of damage.

Wow. That is some powerhouse top-drawer big-brain analysis right there folks. That's why Cox is the Star's senior hockey writer. It takes years to develop that level of insight.

Unless, that is, you consider the third option that Cox left out: Fletcher could also be just like that man of super-integrity and character that's such a hot commodity right now named JFJ.

That's right, Fletcher could take the mushy middle ground and trade some veterans for middling prospects (Klee: Suglabov) and then trade picks and prospects for middling vets (2nd, Bell: Perreault).

After nine months on the sidelines, he'll be starting from ground zero. Under Ferguson, the Leafs had been talking to teams for weeks, assessing the market for the likes of Mats Sundin, Darcy Tucker and Bryan McCabe and lining up potential trades.

There were three teams interested in McCabe, more in Tucker. If the meddling MLSE board hadn't stonewalled the process, one or more futures deals might have been done by now.

Instead, Fletcher starts with no deals on the table, a demoralized hockey department in upheaval and 34 days to the deadline. He's going to have to roll up his sleeves and hustle, work the phone relentlessly and put in long hours to get this done effectively.

Um, the hockey staff is still there and if JFJ managed to leave his super-secret decoder ring behind, that "demoralized" hockey staff can let Mr. Fletcher know the juicy details of all these supposed wonderful rainbow coloured franchise saving trades that JFJ had allegedly set-up.

More importantly, that same staff can let Mr. Fletcher in on JFJ's master plan to get guys like Tucker, Sundin and McCabe to waive their NMC and NTCs that JFJ threw around like candy.

Also, what's with the roll-up the sleeves stuff? Has anyone suggested that Fletcher was brought in to lolly gag? I hate this type of lazy writing...the team stinks, the organization stinks, isn't it just implicit that there's a great deal of work to be done? Based on Cox's observation, are we to conclude that if JFJ was still GM, there wouldn't be a lot of work to do? That they could, uh, leave their shirt sleeves rolled down?

When it came to the possible trading of Sundin, Fletcher said: "The most important thing is to do what's right for Mats." Questioned further as to whether it wasn't more vital to do what was best for the hockey club, Fletcher said: "Mats is driving the engine here."

Well, at least we know who's in charge.

Wonder who asked those two questions and got shut-down on the follow-up? Hmmm...

Look, Fletcher's biggest job, one that goes largely unmentioned by Cox, is to get Mats to waive his NTC so that he can be moved before the deadline so the Leafs can re-stock their cupboard of picks and prospects.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the best way to start that process is by pulling an Alexander Haig and publicly dictating Mats' fate at an introductory media conference. Maybe that's just the way Cox rolls but Cox isn't the one trying to deal the Leafs' premier player.
Perhaps Fletcher will indeed start the logical process of moving veterans and big contracts for prospects and draft picks. There's nothing stopping him.

Moreover, that's what Fletcher now says he believes in.

Just like Punch.

Perhaps Fletcher will start wearing a snappy fedora to work.

Just like Punch.

Perhaps Fletcher will get a shiny gold helmet and ride a police motorcycle.

Just like Punch.

Or maybe Fletcher will take to pumping out 750+ word missives full of straw men, weak logic and commissive truths.

Just like Cox.

Ten Things I was thinking about...

...while the game was on (man the Bruins are a boring club).

10. Is there an easier punch line in Canadian sports media than the very tired, “plan the parade” that gets thrown around whenever the Leafs win a game? I know there’s a writer’s strike but can Mike Toth and and the brainless minions that fill my screen each night come up with something new. Please.

9. A.J. Liebling called it "‘on the other hand’ journalism" - that rare ability to sit on the fence or find fault with all courses of action. I think Damien Cox might be the true master of this school of thought. If the Leafs ever win the Cup and the series goes seven, half of this town’s media will file ledes about how the Leafs should have won it in five.

8. What are the odds that someone can write an article or a column about the Leafs without dropping 1967 or “40 years”. Seriously. We get it. It's been a loooooonnnnnngggggggg time.

7. Speaking of dry spells, the Leafs are hardly alone (not that this excuses any incompetence at MLSE) but here are some other clubs that are similar territory, look for these team names to be included alongside 1967 to provide some balance/context:

35+ Years Without a Cup
Buffalo Sabres
Boston Bruins
Chicago Blackhawks
Los Angeles Kings
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
Washington Capitals

Soon to be in the 35+ Years club
Philadelphia (33 years and counting...)

20+ Years
New York Islanders
Winnipeg/Phoenix

15+ Years
Calgary
Edmonton
Montreal
Ottawa
Pittsburgh
San Jose

6. Think back to last February/March when the Leafs were in the final stretch battling for a final playoff spot. At that time, the Leafs said they were approaching those end of season games as though it were the playoffs. They then went on to play .500 hockey, putting up stinkers against Washington, the Islanders and others (well done boys!). Well, it may be a few months early, but that same metaphor has been yanked out by the club yet again. Here's my question: if the Leafs lose four out of seven will they be eliminated from the regular season?

5. Does it really take death to engineer a change at the top for the Leafs? First Ballard, then Stavro...does anyone know how old Peddie is? How’s his cholesterol? Is he in good health?

4. Did you know that Leaf fans are in charge of programming down at the CBC? It’s true. Every year, 26 members of Leafs nation are chosen in a secret ceremony on Mutual Street and each one is given the responsibility to program a single 7:30 Saturday night game for Hockey Night in Canada. It’s funny, you’d think national programming decisions would have to do with ratings and market size - Toronto is the fifth largest media market in North America after all and the Leafs are a wildly popular team - but you’d be wrong. We members of Leaf nation get to pick what all Canadian viewers have to watch on Saturday nights. Our fellow Canadians cannot turn away, they cannot seek programming elsewhere and they must complain to me about it because I’m a Leafs fan…this is how things work. We must not stop and think about it nor question it. It just is.

3. Do people really believe that Leafs Nation is a monoculture? Can a fan base this large, every single mouth-breathing one of us, all believe the exact same thing: the Leafs are going to win the Cup each and every year. Look, the only trait Leaf fans all share is delusion – (we do cheer for the Leafs after all), but we’re not all optimists, we’re not all incapable of holding down the shift-key when we’re pounding out exclamation marks (Leafs are gonna win the cup, baby!!!!!!!1), very few of us want the Leafs to turn things around this year, yet the media sure would have you believe we’re all of one voice and of one mind (and a rather damaged/limited mind at that).

2. For those of you who think boycotting the Leafs will solve everything. Sure it will. Now please put down your petition, while I walk away slowly.

1. As much as I want the Leafs to have a top 3 pick at the 2008 draft, I find it very hard to cheer against the Blue and White. I was (unexpectedly) thrilled when Steen potted the winner tonight against the Bruins (although if MLSE thinks this makes the team buyers at the deadline, I will seriously circulate a petition and call for a boycott on all Leafs goods).

Speaking of Cox

I picked up a Toronto Star sports section that had been abandoned on the subway this morning. I probably should have stuck to my book.

I'm going to tread into CoxBloc territory here and I don't even know where to start. Cox assembles a rambling collection of "thoughts" on the Rangers-Leafs pre-game festivities; McCabe's gaffe; Tlusty's photos and comes to the strange conclusion that the Leafs have sold their soul.

Where to begin? Let's start with the pre-game shenanigans, in the print edition Cox writes:

Were [Stafford] Smythe around yesterday, the collective misbehaviour of today's Leaf millionaires would undoubtedly have made him throw up.

For starters, you had the team and one of the veterans it counts upon for mature leadership, Darcy Tucker, rapped on the knuckles and fined by the NHL for participating in a truly adolescent scene last Saturday night in the pre-game warm-up with the Rangers.

So in the print world of Mr. Cox, one would conclude that the skirmish must be a pretty big deal. It's the first page lead (or lede for your print-junkies) it includes an exhumation of poor Stafford Smythe, and it produces the usual smug indignation from Cox.

But over in the electronic world of the Star it's a bit of a different story.

In his on-line "blog" (which is just another 500 word column that the Star insists on calling a blog even thought it has all the intimacy and two-way communication of K-Fed and Britney's marriage with about half the intellect) Cox writes of the skirmish:

Everybody's up in arms about Sean Avery after Saturday night's Rangers-Leafs game, and to be sure this is a juicy story. But outrage? I don't think so. Peel away all the rhetoric and here's what you have: two guys pushed and shoved during the pre-game warm-up, said nasty things to each other and then fought during the first period. Big Deal.

I'd just like to know which one it is - blog=no big deal or front-page=lead item and big deal?

Flipping back to the print story, Cox concludes the Avery-Tucker skirmish with this odd thought:

Try as they might to make it all Sean Avery's fault, the Leafs were, essentially, found equally culpable in the idiotic episode.

The Rangers were fined $25,000 and the Leafs $10,000. Avery was fined $2,500 and Tucker was fined $1,000. The League said, "The unprofessional conduct of Avery in initiating this altercation...is the basis for this discipline....Tucker also bears some responsibility for his inappropriate response. "

So, the Rangers fines are 2.5x those of the Leafs. The League found that Avery was the initiator while Tucker only bears "some responsibility" and Cox concludes that the Leafs are "equally" culpable.

That's the strangest definition of "equal" I've ever encountered.

Next up: the McCabe give-away.

It was a bad pass. A horrific pass. A stupid play. Next...

Oh good, more moral indignation from Cox - just what we all needed - and this time it's poor Jiri Tlusty in the cross-hairs.

For those of you living under a rock, the kid took some naked photos of himself and emailed them to a woman, who promptly posted them all over the web. The fact that the Toronto media are only picking up on this today (it's the front page of the Toronto Sun) tells me these guys need to trade in their dial-up modems and check out this thing called the world-wide-web. Deadspin broke the Tlusty story on November 8 and it's been on Leaf discussion boards for days. That's a long time in this world of 24 hour news cycles and breaking stories, yet Cox only brings his faux-moral indignation to the table today, he writes:

...if this was a team of pride and tradition, Tlusty wouldn't have been in the lineup last night and Leaf ownership wouldn't have been hiding behind a press release.
The youngster would be back in the minors, having disgraced what was once a Canadian institution – a team that once had a member of Parliament in its lineup – with his amateur porn shots. Ownership, meanwhile, would be vowing to make certain such foolishness never reoccurred.

Really? A teenager sends a naked photo and he's disgraced a Canadian institution? For posing naked he should be sent to the minors? Is once having a member of Parliament in its lineup really the best indicator of quality? Has Cox ever watched question period? What's a bigger disgrace to the Leaf brand - a teenage prospect posing naked for a cell-phone photo or a paedophile ring being run out of Maple Leaf Gardens? Hmm...so many questions.

Sure Tlutsy was rather misguided in sending those photos, but to call for his demotion in order to protect the Leaf brand - a brand that is somewhat sullied after 40 years of losing, managerial incompetence, criminal behaviour and other assorted f*ck ups is a bit rich.

That said, I do look forward to future columns from Cox calling for the suspension of Garth Snow for encouraging hot (well, hottish) girl on girl action. Keeping Robbie Schremp buried in the AHL for his frightening photos in a bad thong. Shutting down the NBA for the way players interact with fans (some of those guys are married!). The elimination of NFL franchises in Cincinnati and Minnesota (surely Cox would call for Fred Smoot to be sent out to sea, alone on an ice floe) and the future of Isiah Thomas outside of sports, perhaps as a squeegee kid.

Look, I'm not saying that athletes shouldn't be held to the same standards as the rest of us. I'm not saying that Tlusty didn't make a mistake and I'm not saying there isn't a place for some sort of moral decency.

But I'm sick of Cox being all incensensed and sanctimonious over what are essentially mistakes. A teenager posed naked; McCabe blew a pass; Tucker and Avery had a little spat - is this really the right fodder for the front page of a sports section? Can one really tie these things together and conclude that a franchise has lost it's soul? Is this really the best that Cox can do?

As an aside, didn't the Leafs sell their soul back in the 70s? I'm pretty sure you can only sell your soul once. It's just like the "city losing it's innocence" trope that lazy media types love to trot out - once that innocence is gone, just like one's soul - there's no getting it back.

As for Cox, if this is the best he can do and he honestly believes that last night was some sort of tipping point or threshold for the Leafs, it's time he heeded his own advice to McCabe and considers a move to a new market to ply his trade.

Kelly, Salming and Day

The Leafs have announced that opening night Borje Salming, Red Kelly and Hap Day will have their numbers honoured with a banner for each raised to the ACC rafters.

I don’t mean to be all negative all the time (you have the Star’s Damien Cox if that’s your bag) but I have two issues with this.

First, let’s give each player their own ceremony. There are 41 home dates and other than the Hockey Hall of Fame game, I’m sure the club can find two more opportunities by cancelling Quaker Harvest Oats Toque night; Catelli Bat Day and the Chacin Cologne promo among the 39 remaining nights of hockey.

Second, enough with the shoulder patches and “honouring” numbers. The Leafs should be recognizing the depth of their history and tradition by retiring these numbers. Full stop.

I know, I hear you - it's official team policy to only retire jerseys for players who are struck by tragedy while members of the club (it’s a good thing they make this distinction or else Horton’s #7 would be retired but alas, he died a member of the Buffalo Sabres).

This club policy also ensures players like John Kordic (27), Mike Craig (9) Marius Czerkawski (21) and a long list of call-ups, one year wonders and has beens honour the blue and white and all of Leafs Nation by wearing the numbers of former Leaf greats…(when you go 40 years without a Cup, the list of inappropriate players wearing honoured numbers is pretty much endless - who didn't get goosebumps and recall the magic of Darryl Sittler while watching Alexandre Khavanov play in #27? )

Leaf “Retired” Numbers
5 Bill Barilko
6 Ace Bailey

Leaf “Honoured” Numbers
1 Johnny Bower and Turk Broda
4 Red Kelly and Hap Day
7 King Clancy and Tim Horton
10 Syl Apps and George Armstrong
21 Borje Salming
27 Frank Mahovolich and Darryl Sittler

Crap Shoot or Shooting Crap?

I think I’m one of the rare leaf fans that occassionaly agrees with Damien Cox, but I can’t say I agree with his absurd post in his blog The Spin at the Star.

He writes:

[If the Canes win] its sure going to make all the crap spewed by Pat Quinn and others with the Maple Leafs in recent years look like, well, crap. These guys tried to convince hockey fans that winning championships was a crapshoot, that in a 30-team league it was as much about luck than an excellence and what really mattered was accumulating the greatest amount of playoff games over the course of three or four seasons.

It’s hard to know where to begin in taking this paragraph apart.

1. As much as I love to bash the folks at MLSE, I don’t believe any of the suits have ever stated that it’s the accumulation of playoff games that matter. Does Cox really believe that Quinn and Co. didn’t want to win the cup? By and large these are men that have spent their entire working in pursuit of a drink from that great silver mug.
   
   We’re all grown-ups, we know how corporations work – you communicate the positive and stay away from the negative. Haven’t won a championship in 40 years? Talk up how many conference finals you’ve made or how many playoff games you’ve appeared in over the years. For a veteran newspaper man, Cox is picking an interesting time to play dumb on this one.
   
   
2. There is no denying that Luck plays a big part in sports, but I don’t recall anyone in Leaf management claiming that winning a championship was a crapshoot or a matter of spinning a roulette wheel. If that were indeed the case (both the luck part and the Leafs’ claiming it was so) why would successive teams have loaded up at the playoffs for a run at the cup. Why trade for Nolan or Leetch if it’s all going to come down to rabbits’ feet and pyramid power?
   
   
3. If the Canes have been anything in making it to the finals, it’s lucky. I’d advise Mr. Cox to go way way back deep into his archives and re-read his post of four days ago where he details all of the breaks that have come the Canes way. The odds of that many breaks going the Canes way? I'd call it a crapshoot.

The Spin indeed.

Link