Hold Please

Doug Gilmour did it. So did Felix Potvin. Bryan Berard and Dimitri Yushkevich did it at the same time.

When Keith Tkachuk did it, Cam Neely went to the media to question Tkachuk's values.

Petr Nedved once did it for nearly 18 months straight and Alexi Yashin did it so frequently fans, GMs and team-mates were more than a little sore.

But nobody seems to be doing it much anymore.

For much of the 1990s, it was commonplace for NHL players to hold-out or even walk out on their teams as part of contract negotiations. If a player was represented by Mark Gandler it was almost a certainty that they'd do it each time they even so much as heard the word "contract."

But the hold-out seems to have gone the way of the 125+ point season. What was once an annual occurrence for a handful of players is now a rarity.

A quick google news archive search revealed that almost every player who has held out since the new CBA was signed was a Restricted Free Agent at the time. Gaborik might be the lone exception.

With NHL camps set to open in the next week, Bobby Ryan is the only big name player without a deal that I can think of - and if you believe what you read on twitter, a signed contract is imminent. There may be others, but none spring to mind...

What killed the hold out?

Was it the CBA with it's hard cap, ascribed amount for total player salaries and set values for ELCs and max salaries?

Was it the emergence of the KHL as a viable alternative for players?

Or is it a little bit of both?

I certainly don't miss the hold-out, but I'd love to know what has made it disappear.

Find all the best pubs for watching Leaf games at YellowPages.ca

I'm so sick of Goodbyes

The man with the bad hair on the left is Darryl Sittler. He was a first round pick of the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1970 and was named captain in 1975 (after the Leafs asked Dave Keon to give up the C. You stay classy Toronto.)

Sittler was the captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs for five years. During that time he would play for Team Canada, make numerous all-star teams, set a record for most points in a single game (10), tie the record for most goals in a playoff match (5), and come third in the NHL scoring race with 117 points - finishing behind Guy Lafleur and Brian Trottier. He was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1989.

After a series of odd moves by Harold Ballard and Punch Imlach (including suing the NHLPA over Sittler's involvement in promotions and trading away Sittler's best-pal and line mate Lanny MacDonald) Sittler stripped the "C" from his jersey.

Re-appointed Leaf captain in 1980-81, the conflict between the players and management did not abate and the team finally asked Sittler to waive his no trade clause. Sittler agreed, but the trade talks were so protracted and ugly that Sittler was advised to take a leave of absence from the Leafs mid-season. The final trade still took two more weeks to be completed.

An all-star, first round pick, captain and good guy dealt for spare parts.

The guy on the far right (next to a young Steven Perry?) is Rick Vaive.

A former first round pick of the Vancouver Canucks, he was acquired by the Leafs in a trade that sent Bill Derlago (the Steve Perry look-alike) to the Leafs for Jerry Butler and Dave "Tiger" Williams.

Vaive was the captain of the Leafs from 1981 to 1985.

In 1982 he became the first Leaf to break the 50 goal mark. I may have been 10 at the time, but I distinctly recall that approximately 42 of his 54 goals were scored on booming slap shots from the top of the circle as he cruised down the right side of the ice.

Vaive led the Leafs in scoring (1982, 83 and 85), goals scored (1982-1985) and penalty minutes in 1981. He is the all-time highest scoring right wing in Leafs history.

In 1985 Harold Ballard thought it would be a good idea to strip Vaive of his captaincy when he was late for practice one day (you stay classy Toronto).

The Leafs dealt Vaive and Steve "Stumpy" Thomas to Chicago before the start of the 1987 season for Bob McGill, Al Secord and Ed Olczyk.


As the bottom of the card says, the man on the left in Leaf blues is Rob Ramage.

A first round pick of the Colorado Rockies, Ramage came to Toronto in 1989 via the Calgary Flames for a second round pick (interesting note: the Flames used that second round pick to select Kent Manderville, who would later be re-acquired by the Leafs as part of the Doug Gilmour mega-deal).

Ramage would play D for the Leafs for just two season before the Leafs left him unprotected in the 1991 expansion draft (you stay classy Toronto) where Ramage was claimed by Minnesota.

The man laying a beating on Bob Probert over there on your right doesn't need much of an introduction or a write-up.

Wendel Clark was a first round pick of the Leafs and one of the few bright spots for the organization in the 80s.

He wasn't a very good skater and was hurt more often than he was healthy (he averaged just 51 games a season for the Leafs) but he could fight, hit and score like no other Leaf before or since.

He had a laser for a wrist shot and anvils for fists.

Clark would captain the Leafs from 1991 to 1994, but in a stunning move, Cliff Fletcher traded Clark to the Nordiques, along with Sylvain Lefebvre, Landon Wilson and Toronto's 1st round choice for Mats Sundin, Garth Butcher, Todd Warriner and Philadelphia's 1st round choice.

Wendel would have three go-rounds with the Leafs.

He was re-acquired along with Mathieu Schneider and D.J. Smith for Darby Hendrickson, Sean Haggerty, Kenny Jonsson and Toronto's 1st round pick, only to walk away from the Leafs as a free agent just two years later, signing with Tampa Bay.

After being released by Chicago, Clark would quietly finish out his career playing in twenty games for the Leafs in 2000 and then six playoff matches where he managed to show a few sparks of his former self.

This is Doug Gilmour, arguably one of the most popular all-time Leafs.

He was acquired by Cliff Fletcher in what might be the all-time greatest trade in Leaf history.

A contractual hold-out in Calgary, Gilmour arrived in Toronto and instantly made this team a contender. He put up 49 points in his first 40 games with the Leafs and followed that up with 127 point season - the most points ever scored by a Leaf. He finished fourth in NHL scoring the following season with 111 points.

It was in the playoffs that Gimour established his legend. His wrap-around goal in double OT against Curtis Joseph and the Blues may be one of the most iconic goals scored in modern Leaf history. While the Leafs didn't make the finals that year, Gilmour would finish second in playoff scoring with 35 points.

By 1996, Leafs ownership was in turmoil and contracts were being dumped. Mike Murphy was clearly out of his element behind the Leafs bench as he took the team from perrennial playoff contender to last place (a .377 record in the first half of the season. The team would finish an ugly 30-44-8).

It was clear that Gilmour's time with the Leafs was over.

This was an awkward time for Gilmour and the Leafs. He ripped the club and his teammates after a bad loss to Vancouver that January. His play was inconsistent (the media took to calling him a "spectator"). Leaf officials called him out publicly - stating he didn't work as hard as the fans thought he did. He demanded a trade, denied demanding a trade. There were allegations that Dougie was using trade talk to fish for more money from the Leafs. And then, as the trade deadline approached, he publicly asked for a contract extension (despite having his worst year as a Leaf and an owner who was dumping salary) so he could retire a Leaf.

On February 26, he was dealt to New Jersey, along with Dave Ellet for Alyn McCauley, Steve Sullivan and Jason Smith.


Mats Sundin was named captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs on opening night 1997. He was the second longest serving captain in the NHL behind only Joe "snowblower" Sakic.

He is the Leafs all-time goal scoring leader, all-time points leader and is second on the Leafs in all-time assists.

He has the Leafs longest home-game point streak and he led the club in scoring in all but one season that he wore the Blue and White.

Eight All-Star game appearances, named to the second-team all-star team twice, the first player to score 500 goals as a Leaf. He was the captain of the Swedish Olympic gold medal winning team.

He is ranked 22nd all time in career goals (555); 34th all time in career assists (766); 30th all time in career points (1321) in the NHL.

Sundin holds the record as the longest serving European captain of an NHL franchise, he is the first Swedish player to score 500 goals and among Swedish players, Mats has the most points, goals and assists in the NHL.

Many would argue he was the greatest Leaf ever.

* * *

Something to think about on this snowy afternoon: not since George Armstrong in 1970 has a Leaf captain retired with the club.

**Addendum: Down Goes Brown brought up an interesting point in the comments about captains retiring with their team. I just happened to have this list handy as I had prepped it about a year ago for a blog post that never was. I looked at every NHL team over the past 20+ years to see how many teams had their captain retire. It's a short-list:

• Stevens in New Jersey
• Yzerman in Detroit
• Al McInnis in St. Louis
• Steve Smith in Calgary
• Paul Laus in Florida
• Messier (in his second tour) with the Rangers
• Mellanby in Atlanta.

That's it.

Every where else is a long list of buy outs, trades, and free agency. Note, I didn't include injuries in the list like Primeau in Philly and Lemieux (the first time round) in Pittsburgh

No Predictions, Low Expectations

Cross-posted from PPP where the fellas were kind enough to ask me for my thoughts on the coming season, instead I gave them this...

No predictions and low expectations. That pretty much sums up my take on the upcoming Leaf season.

This is a year where, with the exception of Nikolai Kulemin and Ron Wilson, the most intriguing story lines will occur away from the ice at the ACC: the development of Schenn and Pogge; the backroom deals struck to bring in more picks and prospects; the on-going (never ending) search for a President and GM; the build-up to the trade deadline; prepping for the 2009 draft; the ongoing efforts to untie JFJ's Gordian knot; and hopefully avoiding the thin (thin!) 2009 UFA pool.

In place of a guess at a win loss record or what odds the Leafs might have of making the post-season, I offer this instead...

What We Can Learn from Cliff Fletcher

The first thing most people remember about Cliff Fletcher’s original tenure with the Leafs: blockbuster trades.

This is the GM that brought the Leafs Doug Gilmour and Mats Sundin; two trades that, in an ideal world, would buy this GM all sorts of latitude from the media, stakeholders and the fans.
This being Toronto, his legendary work is often brought into question by two simple words: "draft schmaft" (proving the lasting value of mnemonics).

The next thing fans are likely to recall is Fletcher dismantling the team. As then-owner Steve Stavros’ grocery empire came crumbling down it necessitated a series of salary dumps and resulted in one of the more recent dark periods of Leaf history (who was a worse coach, Mike Murphy or Paul Maurice? Discuss).

Between the big trades and the eventual decline of this club, Fletcher demonstrated not just a keen understanding of how to build a team, but how to evaluate one.

Fletcher is the first GM I can recall who looked at his team in ten game increments and openly talked to the media about using ten game trends to identify strengths, weaknesses and patterns in his team's play. (This could very well be more a function of having a string of horrible front office staff in Toronto than it was Fletcher bringing something new to the game, the fans and the media. For all I know, Cecil Hart and the Habs were doing this with The Gazette and La Presse back in Chelios' rookie season in 1937).

Breaking the Pain Down into Ten Game Segments

Fletcher's approach back in the day is something we fans could learn from and need to apply to the coming season.

This year the focus should be on player development and team trends over ten to 20 game increments, not on who blew coverage on the PK, which player kicked a sock in anger and how to best quantify the greed of MLSE and the alleged concomitant stupidity of Leaf fans.
Looking at how the Leafs have performed since the lock-out, we fans can do ten games in our sleep. It's also a safe way to approach a year that is likely to set some sort of record for media hysterics.

Mittenstringers, Mouth Breathers and One-Fingered Typists

Despite being covered by one of the largest media corps in Canada, one certainty for the coming season is that we fans will be fed a steady diet of little more than who won, who scored, and who's to blame. The nutritional equivalent of a cheeseburger-in-a-can, quick, easy, and entirely beside the point.

Look for the mittenstringers to second guess every Leaf transaction and to contradict themselves over what's "best" for the team and the players while neglecting to notice that the bulk of the roster is made up of players for the times rather than players for all time. Let's face it, many of these skaters won’t even be wearing the beautiful blue and white leaf on their chest come March.

Considering the transitional nature of the roster, instead of running these players out of town or setting up effigies, I suggest that the Barilkosphere lead the way in looking at the bigger picture.

How much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

In public polling (or "research" as those in the trade like to call it, don’t know when it happened but it seems pollster has become a bad word) one of the most fundamental questions one can ask it the "right track/wrong track" question. And it’s a question we should likely be asking every ten games leading up to the trade deadline. Is this team on the right track or the wrong track? Are management’s player personnel decisions on the right track or the wrong track? Are Wilson's systems on the right track or wrong track? Is Pogge's development on the right track (65 starts) or the wrong track (benched for Clemmensen in the playoffs)? Are the Leafs acquiring picks and prospects (right track) or dealing second round picks for 15 games of Yanic Perreault (wrong track)?

Let's face it, it really doesn’t matter if the Leafs win 14 or 40 games this year. What matters is how management reacts to the results in the wins and losses column. Building a team that can eventually take a serious run at and challenge for the Cup has to be, must be, at the root of every decision management makes.

Right track or wrong track?

A simple question to keep top of mind for the upcoming season.

A simple question that will hopefully distract us from countless third period melt-downs, rookie errors, and a media contingent that takes obscene delight in the failures of the Leafs and questioning the loyalty of Leaf fans.

Leaf Captains: Two to be Honoured, One to Sign?

So the Leafs have announced they will be honouring Doug Gilmour and Wendel Clark this season.

As many of you likely know, the Toronto Maple Leafs only honour numbers - they don't retire them (the only two numbers the Leafs have retired are #5 for Bill Barilko and #6 for Ace Bailey).

It's official team policy to retire the jerseys of outstanding players who are struck by tragedy while members of the club (still to be determined: if management's abject failure to properly build a club around the talents of Mats Sundin qualifies as a tragedy).

Honouring v. retiring numbers aside, it's great to see that each player will have his own ceremony. It certainly irked me in the past when MLSE honored groups of players, instead of having the class to give each guy his due at centre ice.

Clark and Gilmour will join the ranks of other honoured Leafs:
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

Once they're up in the rafters, I hope the Leafs exert some control over who gets to wear such meaningful numbers. Gilmour's 93 is such an odd number that's unlikely to be worn again, but it would be nice for the Leafs to reserve 17 for a franchise guy and to make sure it's never worn by the likes of Paul Higgins again.

The Rush for Mediocrity

Mats Sundin says he's about two weeks away from a decision as to whether he'll retire or sign back with an NHL club.

I'm a big fan of Mats and all that's he done as a Leaf and for the Leafs, but I'm way past caring what decision the Big Swede comes to.

If he decides to play elsewhere, the most painful part isn't going to be Mats' return to the ACC, the potential points he might rack up against the Leafs, or even the bizarro world image of him in a Devils or Wild jersey.

I somehow managed to live through Palmateer as a Capital, Sittler as a Flyer, Vaive as Black Hawk, Wendel as a Nordique (and an Islander, Black Hawk, Red Wing and Lightning) and Dougie playing for what seemed like a third of the league (ok, it was just the Devils, Black Hawks, Sabres and Canadiens). Somehow, I think we'll be ok with Mats lacing 'em up for some other club.

Hands-down the worst part of Mats signing somewhere else is going to be the media sh*tstorm that follows it.

Stemming the tide of the craptacular media coverage will be like trying to stay dry while standing under Niagara Falls armed only a little umbrella from a girl-drink (like say a Chocolate-choo choo, you know it tastes just like candy).

And if the media coverage isn't bad enough, a close second on the continuum of bad outcomes is the possibility that Mats decides to come back and play for the Leafs.

This team desperately needs another top five draft choice and Mats' return is likely enough to move this team away from a shot at a lottery pick to another meaningless outside of the playoffs 11 - 14th selection in the first round.

If Mats signs with another team and the Leafs ice their current line-up, I foresee a nice high pick in next year's draft (hopefully to be joined by more prospects/picks acquired by dealing away Kubina and/or McCabe).

Another year of Mats would be nice but a shot at the Tavares/Hedman lottery would be even nicer.

I don't think the Leafs can have both.

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.

Sidebar Blues

I’m contemplating a response to Steve Maich's inept Macleans piece on why the Leafs Stink (and wondering when Masthead Magazine or the Ryerson Reveiw of Journalism will feature their cover story on why Macleans Magazine stinks. I've got a few insights I can offer up...)

In the interim, while the Leafs clean-out their lockers and Leafs Nation turns its lonely eyes to Monday's draft lottery (C'mon Phoenix - 24th place is still within the Leafs grasp!) I thought I'd have a quick go at the side-bar that accompanies the larger Macleans piece.

The sidebar, by Chris Selley (whose reporting I usually like) looks at the Leafs' worst deals as part of the overall, so-called "examination" as to why the Leafs, uh, suck.

Of the seven trades cited by Macleans, any hockey fan would agree that the top three deals - Mahovolich, Sittler and MacDonald - were all terrible deals for the club, the franchise and the fans.

No debate here.

In fact, I think most sports fans will attest it’s difficult to look back at these franchise altering trades – one can't help but wonder what the GM was thinking and maybe even daydream a little about what could have been. I can’t imagine how difficult it is for an Islanders fan to look back on the Milbury era.

After these top three trades, Macleans is far less persuasive. When you have 40 years of transactions to draw upon, there's going to be more than a few mistakes. I suspect the Leafs aren't any better or any worse than most NHL clubs. But that doesn't exactly fit with the "subtle" narrative of a Leafs suck cover story.

I’m not sure that the Kordic for Courtnall deal is really deserving of a top seven notation, and if it is, the Leafs clearly haven’t too much to be ashamed about. Down Goes Brown wrote an admirable defense of this trade and the reason it was completed – his take is worth the read (more so than the entire Macleans side-bar).

As for the rest of the list, I'm going to split some hairs.

Tom Kurvers for Scott Neidermayer, should actually be Kuvers for a first round pick (who turned out to be Scott Niedermayer). Given that the Leafs of the late 80s thought scouting referred to teams playing between Oshawa and Belleville and were all but wholly reliant on Central Scouting reports for their draft table, I’m doubtful the awful 1988 Leaf club would have drafted Neidermayer. Yeah, it’s still a terrible trade, but call it what it is – a deal for a pick that turned out amazingly well for the New Jersey Devils.

Kenny Jonsson and Roberto Luongo for Wendel Clark and Mathieu Schneider is another deal where it was a pick that was dealt and that pick turned out to be Roberto Luongo. To suggest that the Leafs would have drafted Luongo is a stretch at best and misleading at worst.

Something to bear in mind when looking at deals like these two: Robert Picard was dealt for a third round pick that turned out to be Patrick Roy. If it’s positioned as Picard for Roy, it’s clearly one of the worst deals of all time. But a player like Picard for a third round pick is a deal many a GM pulls off each and every year.

Steve Sullivan for nothing – this wasn’t a trade, it was a questionable waiver wire decision. The Leafs chose to protect Dmitri Khristich in lieu of Sullivan, admittedly a mistake. While Macleans cites Sullivan's “impressive 180 goals and 281 assists in 520 games” they fail to mention Sullivan’s annual invisibility act in the playoffs (ask folks in Nashville about that one). It's the main reason the Quinn administration deemed Sullivan expendable.

Maybe I expect too much from a news magazine that promises to enlighten and engage. Maybe as a Leafs fan I expect the Doug Jarvis for Greg Hubick deal to make the list (or at least make the list ahead of a waiver wire transaction).

It also might have been nice for Macleans to have provided a bit context to help readers better understand these deals - what do NHL experts make of them? How do these deals compare to other deals being made at the time? Where do these transactions fit in alongside some of the top trades of the past 40 years.

Of course, had they done so, transactions 4 through 7 wouldn't look so bad. They're no Red Berenson for Ted Taylor*

*Certainly, none of the Leaf transaction rival any of the all-time great one-sided deals like Cam Neely and a first round pick for Barry Pederson; Gretzky from Indianapolis to Edmonton for future considerations; Alek Stojanov for Markus Naslund; the original Lindros deal for Forsberg and $15MM; Patrick Roy and Mike Keane for Jocelyn Thibault, Martin Rucinsky, and Andrei Kovalenko; Luongo for Bertuzzi; Pavol Demitra for Christer Olsson; Briere for Gratton; or Mark Messier for Louie DeBrusk, Bernie Nicholls, and Steven Rice or (heaven forbid Macleans mention it) maybe even Gilmour, Macoun, Wamsley, Natress and Manderville for Leeman, Petit, Reese, Berube, and Godynyuk.

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.

Silver Fox to help the Gelding?

Following the public emasculation of JFJ, former Leaf executive and HHOF member Cliff Fletcher has thrown his hat into the three ring circus that is MLSE’s search for a senior consultant.

Fletcher’s first run with the Leafs started off with tremendous promise; however, like all things Toronto Maple Leafs, it ended with a whimper and left the franchise in a bit of a shambles.

Given the overwhelming success the Coyotes have experienced with Fletcher in a consulting role (the GM and much of his executive team fired, a $7.5M contract for Jovo, signing Brett Hull, a dismal draft history, the worst finish in franchise history, missing the playoffs four of the last five years…) I can certainly see why MLSE would be interested in bringing his unique vision to Toronto to assist JFJ.

Here’s a quick look at the possible new MSLE tandem:

	Cliff Fletcher	John Ferguson Junior
Nickname	Silver Fox	The Gelding*
Early hockey influences in their careers	Studied at the knee of the great Sam Pollock of the Montreal Canadiens	Roomed with Paul DiPietro with the Fredericton Canadiens
Big Decisions	Engineered blockbuster trade that brought Gilmour to Toronto	Once rented Happy Gilmore from Blockbuster
Respective teams’ winning percentage in the three years prior to their joining the organization	Phoenix 2001-2004 .548	TML 2001-2004 .585
Respective teams’ winning percentage while they were with the organization	Phoenix 2005-2007 .474	TML 2005-2007: .577
Made the playoffs…	20% - Once in five years as GM/Consultant of Phoenix	33% - Once in three years as GM
Great moments in prognostication	“draft schmaft”	"I did not anticipate a year-long [labour] stoppage…"
First and second round draft picks traded while GM of the Leafs	1st to Philadelphia 1st to NYI 2nd to Hartford 2nd to Pittsburgh (and many flips of first round picks to move up and down in the draft)	1st to NYR 1st to San Jose 2nd to NYR2nd to Phoenix 2nd to San Jose (Also dealt former first round pick Tukka Rask)
The Gretzky Connection?	Worked out a deal to make Gretzky a Leaf but was vetoed by ownsership	Still willing to consummate that deal for Gretzky if he can find cap room for Gretzky's salary demands

*not really, but I'm hoping it will catch on

Hangin' from the rafters

Not to get all circular here, but Pension Plan Puppets has a nice read in reaction to my thoughts on the Leafs honouring rather than retiring numbers.

Further to PPP’s thought provoking post, I gave some quick thought as to the criteria I’d institute if I were running the show down at the ACC (and Lord help us if that were the case, I can’t even win my hockey pool).

First, a few caveats – when it comes to defencmen, it’s tough to rely on stats as a major indicator for jersey retirement - it's much easier to measure the impact of goalies and forwards, that's why I've put in a softer, final catch-all criterion.

And as much as I love the Red Sox criteria, given the amount of player movement in the NHL, I think it’s far too much to expect the player to have spent their entire career with the Leafs (or to even have retired as a Leaf) so I didn't include that one in my list.

Here's what I did come up with...to be eligible to have a number retired, the player has to meet both of the following two baseline criteria:

1. Member of the Hockey Hall of Fame
2. Spent the majority of their NHL career as a Leaf (e.g. played for 10 years, six or more of those had to be with the Blue and White)

In addition to the above, the player would also have to meet at least 2 of the following 3 criterion:

1. Won or been nominated for one of the major NHL trophies such as the Stanley Cup, Hart, Vezina, Jennings, Calder, Rocket Richard, Conn Smythe, Norris or Lady Byng while playing as a Leaf
2. Lead (or have led) the Leafs organization in at least one major statistical category (e.g. career games played, career goals, career assists, career +/-, career points, shut outs, GAA, wins, etc.)
3. Been a pioneer or transformational player for the organization

I think the team should also have special dispensation to retire a number in the event that a player had promising career cut tragically short a la Tim Horton, Bill Barilko or Doug Gilmour (kidding about that last one, at least he got to retire a Leaf after that one magical last shift).

For those players who don’t make the cut against these criteria they can have their numbers honoured. But let’s make sure there are no more Kordics, Khavanov’s, Marchment’s and DeBlois skating around in #27. It's just not right.