Tomas Kaberle

Tomas Kaberle joined the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1998. He arrived as an unheralded and largely unknown 20 year old prospect drafted in the 8th round, 206th overall.

It was assumed he would start the year in the minors, but he skated his way onto that Pat Quinn led team and was a mainstay on the Leafs blue line for 13 years. (So much for Pat Quinn not playing or developing youngsters).

The kid with the rosy cheeks could skate. I’ve been watching the Leafs for nearly 35 years and there haven’t been many defencemen that could glide through the neutral zone and gain the blue line with the efficiency or apparent ease of Kaberle. Salming for sure, Randy Carlysle was another, but you’d only need one hand to count them all.

Kaberle’s detractors, and there are more than a few, didn’t like his defensive zone coverage or his lack of physical play. Fair enough, I suppose. Lucian Freud is likely a lousy singer and I guess Philip Roth can’t dance. Besides, the Leafs franchise is not alone in overvaluing the physical aspects of the game.

But Kaberle’s offensive contributions to the club cannot be denied. He sits in pretty elite company with the Leafs: fifth in assists, second in points by a defenceman and 11th in points overall (just 17 points back of Rick Vaive). Impressive numbers to be sure.

In the end, I am saddened by Kaberle’s departure. Like so many Leaf greats before him I fear he will not be judged by the lens of his accomplishments or how he performed on the ice, but by the shortcomings of his team during his tenure. It’s unfortunate that the failures of management, especially their inability to surround players like Kaberle with the appropriate pieces to win, will colour how many evaluate his career as a Leaf. I do hope time corrects that viewpoint as it has for Sittler, Salming and Sundin.

After 13 years, 878 games, four all-star appearances, a gold and silver World Championship medal and an Olympic Bronze Tomas Kaberle departs the Leafs for the Boston Bruins.

I wish him nothing but success in the future and look forward to his return to the ACC where I hope he will be acknowledged, if not for his wonderful contributions to the Toronto Maple Leafs, for waiving his No Trade Clause and ensuring that this club has yet more prospects and more hope for the future.

Road to Nowhere: Leafs Trade Versteeg

The Toronto Maple Leafs traded 24 year old Kris Versteeg to the Philadelphia Flyers for a 1st and a 3rd round draft pick in 2011.

I don’t like the deal for two simple reasons:

1. The Flyers get the known quantity and the Leafs presume all the risk (the party that takes on the risk should get more of the reward); and
2. It’s highly unlikely that the Leafs will be able to find a player of Versteeg’s ability with the Flyers’ pick.

The Flyers’ pick will likely fall in the 25 to 30 range in the first round of the NHL draft.

I looked at every player drafted 25th to 30th from 1994 to 2009 to see how they compare to a player like Versteeg. A guy who in just his fourth year in the NHL already has two 20 goal seasons and is on pace for a third. His boxcars: 223GP 58G 78A 136pts | 0.26GPG 0.35APG 0.61PtsPG.

Over those 15 16 drafts, 43 forwards have been drafted. Of those 43 forwards:
• Nine (20%) have never played a single NHL game;
• Seven (16%) have scored 58 or more career NHL goals;
• Six (14%) have averaged 0.60 points per game, or better;
• Five (10%) have averaged 0.26 goals per game, or better;

Of the 36 defencemen drafted in the 25 to 30 spot since 1994:
• Thirteen (36%) have never played a single NHL game;
• Twenty-four (66%) have not played in 80 games in their NHL career;

I realize these stats are skewed somewhat as players drafted 2007 to 2009 haven’t had much opportunity to make their mark. But looking at the 78 players taken from 1994 to 2006, the picture doesn’t change much.

In short, it doesn’t look like the Leafs are going to pluck a player with Versteeg’s ability out of that draft spot. Sure, it could happen, but why roll the dice?

The Leafs also got some cap space out of the deal, but Burke hasn’t exactly wowed me with his UFA overspends on Komisarek, Ledba, Orr and Armstrong. And it’s not like 20 goal wingers are available on the free agent market for $3M or less. Also of note, this year’s crop of UFAs is the opposite of good.

Summing up: the Leafs traded a salary-controlled 24 year old who’s consistently scored 20+ goals throughout his career for a draft pick that’s unlikely to turn into a consistent 20 goal scorer and the opportunity to overspend on a thin and overpriced UFA market.

Maybe there's another component yet to come, but as it stands I don’t like this deal.

Leafs, Lupul and Ideas That Won't Die

Three quick thoughts about the Toronto Maple Leafs acquiring Joffrey Lupul:

1. Burke's trades continue to come as complete surprises;
2. The key to the trade might just be the prospect, not the player; and
3. The Leafs take on more salary, cap and term than they ship out.

The first is noteworthy only in that for a long time the ACC/MLSE was leakier than a goaltending tandem of Andrew Raycroft and Vesa Toskala.

To the second point, this deal has a lot of similarities with the Phaneuf trade.

The Leafs got a player with a bloated contract that isn't playing remotely close to his pay grade and whose arrows are pointing the wrong way. The Leafs took on additional salary, a bigger cap hit, and a longer term but by doing so they were able to add another promising prospect, Jake Gardiner, to their system. This, it seems, is the cost of replenishing the talent pool.

Which brings me to my third point...

The financial clout of MLSE may actually be starting to pay off; however, not quite in the way many had expected or predicted.

To date, teams have preferred parking their horrible contracts in the AHL or transferring them to the KHL rather than burning additional assets such as picks and prospects in order to entice another team to take them. (The idea of picks or prospects being exchanged for bad contracts is the zombie of NHL trade coverage. No matter how often it's knocked down and left for dead it just keeps coming crawling back. And like many of the NHL talking heads that raise the issue, it's in desperate need of brains.) Given the amount of air time, column space and page views the trade deadline will generate, I am certain that this oft discussed scenario, which remains rarer than a quiet and reflective moment from Pierre Maguire, will be repeatedly raised and debated before the NHL trade deadline day comes to a merciful close.

But back to the trade...

In short:

• Lupul may be a top six player on the Leafs but this is more a testament of just how thin the Leafs top six is, than it is an indication of Lupul's so-called talent;
• I doubt Lupul pushes the 25 goal mark as many have suggested. He's only crested that mark twice in 6.5 seasons and it's rare for an oft-injured 28 year old to suddenly find a scoring touch;
• The Leafs' single biggest need remains finding a quality centre;
• The Leafs will need to fill-in the 24 minutes a night Beauchemin often played (could mean more Komisarek);
• The Leafs get an opportunity to see what they have in Aulie (not a bad thing, although with rookies, come rookie mistakes);
• The deal crates a long-term issue on D - with Kaberle's departure all but certain (either at the deadline or as a UFA), the Leafs are going to be down two veteran, minute eating d-men;
• The Leafs get younger by adding another prospect to their system; and
• By the time the Leafs are actually a competitive club playing meaningful post-season games, Gardiner could be an important part of this club. Lupul will likely be little more than an entry in the Leafs annual media guide.

Burke has to get the Leafs out of a pretty big hole. Part of that process will come from assembling a group of picks, prospects and young players that can make a meaningful, collective, contribution down the road. Another part of that process will come from acquiring transitional players who can push the John Mitchells and Freddie Sjostroms down the depth chart.

Looking at today's trade, it's pretty clear to me where each of the newly acquired players fits into this ongoing process. And it appears eating $10M of Joffrey Lupul's salary is the cost of making the Leafs that much more competitive and, perhaps, getting them that much further out of a very deep hole.

Upcoming Dates in the Leafs' Calendar

With 11 pending UFAs and RFAs on the Leafs' roster (one or two of who might actually be tradeable) there are a few key dates Leaf fans should keep an eye on.

January 1, 2010 (yeah I know it was three weeks ago):

As of January 1, NHL teams can begin negotiating new deals ("extensions") for players on one-year contracts. Leaf players in this category include Gustavsson, MacDonald and Wallin.

I know I speak for many Leaf fans when I say that Burke better get Wallin's name on a long-term deal (in the SEL, KHL or working the counter selling fast food at Burkie's Dog House).

February 12, 2010 - Olympic trade freeze.

NHL rosters will be frozen for the duration of the corrupt multinational festival Olympics.

February 28, 2010 - Olympic trade freeze ends.

GMs are free to once again make blockbuster deals like Stefan Legein for Michael Ratchuk or Pascal Pelletier for Brendan Bell.

March 3, 2010 - NHL Trade deadline day.

If you're able to do the math here, you'll notice that NHL GMs have all of four days from the end of the Olympic roster freeze to the trade deadline to sort out their final moves of the year.

That means March 3 should make for a great day of TV for Leaf fans to find out:

• Which Leaf will land a 3rd rounder?
• Which underperfoming Leaf won't find a new home and won't get waived?
• Which assistant GM will botch the paperwork and see a deal get annulled?
• What former goon (now character guy) will the Leafs pick-up for a conditional 6th rounder?
• Who will be the first to say, "Sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make."
• That yet another year has passed without a high pick being traded to bury a bad contract
• And no players were moved to help a team hit the cap floor

Trade deadline day has the potential to be almost as exciting as Arbor day, but without any of the moral underpinning.

I Used to Play Bass for Sly

Heard any good trade rumours lately? Any of those rumoured deals actually happen?

Perhaps it's best to ignore all those alledged hot deals out there unless you're looking to drive traffic to certain web sites, you're a fan of Bruce Garrioch or one of the the trade deadline or the NHL draft is right around the corner, but I'm getting ahead of myself....

Trade Patterns

I presumed that these rumoured deals (well, at least the reasonable ones) were safe to ignore because post-lockout, trades in general weren't happening. Then I crunched the numbers (ok, I counted lists) and I was rather surprised to find that, on average, between October and February five trades happen each and every month in the NHL.

That might seem like a lot of trades (and it's way more than I expected to find) but then I took a closer look who is changing jerseys - it’s like I discovered a new game called "spot the AHLer."

This is a list of every player traded between the opening game of this season and today (February 11, 2009). How many of these players do you recognize? Is there a single super star among them? Belak doesn’t count.

Andrew Alberts
Wade Belak
Phillipe Boucher
Sheldon Brookbank
Matt Carle
Carlo Coliachovo
Steve Downie
Robbie Earle
Steve Eminger
Drew Fata
Jonathon Filewich
Dan Fritsche
Josh Gratton
Ryan Hamilton
Andrew Hutchison
Hugh Jessiman
Lukas Krajicek
Jason Labarbera
Junior Lessard
Joakim Lindstrom
Ned Lukacevic
Michael Lunden
Brad May
David McIntyre (traded twice)
Alexander Nikulin
Shane O’Brien
Michel Oullet
Adam Pineault
Eric Reitz
Tim Ramholt
Juraj Simek
Alex Steen
Lee Stempniak
Logan Stephenson
Brian Sutherby
Darryl Sydor
Nick Tarnasky (traded twice)
Lauri Tukonen
Jason Williams
Clay Wilson (traded twice)

I recognized just 17 of the 40 names on the list and I think of myself as a pretty tuned-in hockey fan.

Lee Stempniak, with 27 points (on pace for 40) is the player with the highest point totals and, I suppose, one of the most recognizable names.

Lee Stempniak. Seriously.

I’ll let the soak in for a minute.

Next time you read that Khababulin is headed to the Sens, Hossa is going to Montreal or Gomez is headed to the Canucks, remember that Alex Steen and Carlo Coliachovo for Lee Stempniak is the "blockbuster" deal of 2008.

Clearly, these are not the names that fuel hockey daydreams, click throughs, message board chatter and media columns.

Deadline Dealing

This is not to say that big deals don't happen, rather trades between October and February tend to be small beer. But things certainly heat up at the trade deadline.

In fact, that little window represents about 55% of regular season trade activities.

In 2005-06, there were 35 regular season trades and an additional 35 trade deadline deals.

In 2006-07, there were 30 regular season trades and an additional 46 deadline deals.

In 2007-08, there were just 21 regular season trades and an additional 26 deadline deals.

This year, there have been 28 trades to date. I suspect the trade deadline will come close to eclipsing that total (a chart for those of you with a blurry General Shwartzkopf fetish):

Save Your Rumours for the Off-Season

This is where the rumours should be circulating. Nothing like talking hockey in June, because on average, 22 trades are made each June - that's four times the in-season monthly average.

Last year, a stunning 45 deals went down around the NHL draft. You read that right, more trades happened in and around the third week of June 2008 than transpired between all of October and May of 2007-08 combined.

Here's what an active trading calendar looks like from October 2005 to February 2009:

Not hard to spot the trade deadline and NHL draft day.

Free Agency Season

And to get a bit more perspective on player transactions (or lack thereof) let's look at the number of players who change teams through free agency each off-season (excluding players who re-sign with their own teams).

The total is just slightly more than the number of players that are traded throughout the entire year: 139 in 2006-07; 112 in 2007-08; and 129 this past off-season.

What do these numbers tell us?

Burke has two upcoming windows to make a mark on this club: the trade deadline and draft day. More trades take place on draft day and trade deadline day than the rest of the year combined.

Teams are slightly more likely to acquire a player via free agency as they are through trade.

In the regular season, marginal players are far more likely to be traded than front-line talent.

Fifteen steps, then a sheer drop

The NHL trade deadline is exactly eight weeks away and the Leafs have finally made their first move under Burke.

Gak. It's a 6th rounder for Brad May.

I do belive I called this one back on November 12 although I was only aiming for a cheap and easy punchline. The odds of a sixth rounder turning into a NHLer are pretty small, although it's likely about the same odds that May will do anything of note for the Leafs before he hits UFA status in June.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this move will generate more speculation into Brian Burke's intentions and efforts than the Kennedy assasination (Conspiracy A Go-Go really is the ultimate source on all things JFK) and the future of the North American auto industry combined.

With that in mind, I wanted to post two things today.

The first is the limited information I could find regarding no-trade (NTC) and no-movement clauses (NMC) on the Leafs that Burke will have to deal with.

The second was cap formulas to get a better understanding of how a trade might go down.

NTCs and NMCs

I've been hoping one of the 173 people that cover the Leafs full-time as a paid gig might look into this, maybe call the team, the agents for Hagman, Kaberle and Kubina or send an email to the NHLPA, I know I'm talking crazy, but one can hope...

This is what I was able to turn up from NHLSCAP, old radio interviews with JFJ and searches through the Globe and Star. Only three players on the Leafs appear to have trade limitations:

Niklas Hagman - has a N0-Movement Clause for the first year of his contract with the Leafs. The clause expires after year one.

Tomas Kaberle - has a No-Trade Clause. It's believed that if (let's face it: when) the Leafs miss the playoffs, there is a window in the summer during which Kaberle can be traded without his consent. If it's the same time period as identified in Kubina's contract, the trade window is July 1 to August 15. Sadly, that's 10 days after the entry draft.

Pavel Kubina - has a modified No-Trade Clause. According to various sources, he can only be traded to a list of pre-specified teams (no word on who submits the list or the number of teams it includes/excludes). Last year, there was a window between between July 1 and August 15 where we could have been traded without his consent, it's not clear if that was a one-time window or if it opens every summer if the Leafs don't make the playoffs.

I could find no other references to any of the other Leafs having NMCs or NTCs.

Cap Space, Cap Hits and Further Evidence That Math is Hard

The second challenge facing Burke as he tries to transform the Leafs is the lack of trading partners with cap space.

With nearly a third of the league hard against the cap and another third up against self-imposed budget limits, the Leafs are likely going to have to take on near dollar-for-dollar salary commitments in order to complete a trade. (Not to make things un-necessarilyl complicated but the NHL salary cap is actually calculated on a daily basis. Team's cannot exceed a per day salary limit of $296,858.64. Nik Antropov, for example, would cost a team $10,732.98 per day in cap space.)

In short: Leafs Nation can dream of picks and prospects, but the reality is most trades are likely going to bring back some ugly contracts.

What's with the post title? Click here.

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.

There's Sports Way Up in Section Eight

I’d like to welcome to readers of the New York Times Hockey Blog, “Slap Shots” - thanks for stopping by. Please make yourself at home and by all means feel free to post a comment using your own hockey allusions involving the Leafs as a mentally unstable or aging institutionalized family member. Given the work of the recently departed JFJ and a long history of organizational dysfunction, it’s surprisingly easy.

As for my regular readers (both of you) if you don’t already routinely check out the NYT, you might be interested to know the Old Grey Lady (and no, that's not a euphemism for Yolanda Ballard) is running a series featuring 30 bloggers, one from each NHL team, responding to a set of five questions. Somehow, I was asked to be the Leafs representative (I guess JFJ lost his blog when he got canned) and my responses have been posted here.

It may be my first day at the Times, but Frank Rich still isn't returning my calls. I'm sure by the third set of questions when I explore Leafs Nation as a metaphor for the culture wars Mr. Rich will have changed his mind.

The plan over at Slap Shots is for the 30 of us to respond to a set of five questions on average about every two weeks (or in more Leaf-like terms: about as often as Jason Blake scores). Several divisions have had their responses posted, I suggest you go check it out and maybe leave a comment or two.

No word if the questions coming my way will be all about golf once the post-season begins.

###

For those of you looking for trade deadline updates, best bet is to check in with TSN.

The Leafs have been pretty quiet today, so far the only deal is Belak going to Florida for a 5th. The Leafs were soft to begin with but now - wow...Hope Belak gets a better shot in FLA - maybe I'll work up the courage to chat with him next time I see him down at Riverdale Farm with the kids.

Brave Captain

Mats Sundin has come out and formally refused to waive his no trade clause.

As much as I’d love to see the Leafs loaded up with prospects, I strongly believe Sundin has earned the right to decide his fate.

Had Sundin been traded, I fully expected the media and other mouth breathers to take lots of pot shots at the Leafs over the treatment their captains have historically received - from losing Rob Ramage in an expansion draft to the weirdness that is Dave Keon (could the JFJ orchestrated “reunion” have been more awkward? I fully expected someone to produce a doll and ask Keon wher the Leafs organization touched him).

But is the fate of so many Leaf captains really an anomaly?

Not if you look at how the other 29 clubs have treated the men who wear the C.

Consider:

All thirty clubs have either traded one of their past three captains or lost them to free agency.

Prior to Koivu, the storied Habs had traded their six previous captains.

Detroit dealt Danny Gare before Stevie Y could wear the C.

Of the last six men to captain the Oilers, four were traded, one was stripped of the captaincy and one was lost in an expansion draft. Their cross-province rivals in Calgary actually demoted a captain to the minors, traded three others and lost one to free agency.

Modano, Lecavalier, Conroy, Desjardins and Elias all lost or resigned their captaincy.

In fact of the nearly 120 players who have been team captains in the past 15 or so ears, only eight retired with their clubs and two of them (Laus and Primeau) retired prematurely due to injuries (although, I guess the same could kinda-sorta be said of Lemieux as well...)

Scott Stevens, New Jersey
Al MacInnis, St. Louis
Steve Smith, Calgary
Steve Yzerman, Detroit
Paul Laus, Florida
Keith Primeau, Philadelphia
Mark Messier, New York Rangers
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh
Scott Mellanby, Atlanta

###

So four of the NTC5 have said no, leaving just McCabe as possible trade bait.

Considering there's just a $750K difference between Kubina and McCabe's cap hit and the extras McCabe brings to the ice, I'd prefer the Leafs hold on to McCabe and ship out Kubina this summer.

Ten Things I've been thinking about lately...

10. I realize Maurice has more hockey knowledge in just one of those deep dark circles under his eyes than I will ever hope to acquire no matter how much hockey I watch, but as the Leafs game went up like a four alarm blaze in Tonawanda, why didn't Maurice call a time-out or swap out Raycroft? Anything to stop the bleeding. Instead, wave after wave of Sabres came at them, the Leafs got gut-punch crushed and Raycroft will have to be back between the pipes in 20 or so hours (watch that glove-hand Andy, it's a bitch).

9. I'm a little confused - the Leafs were supposed to be life and death to make the playoffs. The experts said it; the coach said it; many fans said it and the GM may have even said it. So what's with the injury story angle? If the Leafs were healthy, are we to believe they'd be protecting these leads, winning in shoot-outs, not choking? Only Peca's hurt at the moment and this team still looks like a 10 spot club or worse...

8. When discussing the Perrault deal, why do so many fans think Bell would have been lost to waivers? At the Trade deadline, the Leafs had the flexibility to acquire one player without having to pass anyone through waivers. Once the trade deadline passes, there is no roster limit (CBA 16.4a). If Bell was going to be lost to waivers (and there's no knowing if this is true or not) the earliest he would have been lost is October 2007. Seven months after the trade deadline. FWIW, Bell has more points since the trade than Perrault, although he's getting about twice the ice-time of Perrault (and what's up with #94 logging 6 to 10 minutes/game?)

7. It seems common knowledge that Ferguson will be fired if the Leafs miss the playoffs again this year (here, here, hell - everywhere) but I've never found a source for this. Does any one have a citation on this? A quote from Peddie, Tannenbaum or anyone at MLSE? I have a bad feeling Ferguson has at least another year left in him. I guess MLSE wants at least one more trade deadline to pass so they can sit on their hands.

6. The polarizing effect of Raycroft. He's not as good as the wins total crowd would have you believe (check out his total losses, his win percentage and the shoot-out wins compared to Eddie and Cujo) and on the other hand he's not as dreadful as some of the stats might suggest (his ES SV% is solid; his PK SV% is lower than a Sens fan's self-esteem each June.) Would he be such a divisive figure if he wasn't a JFJ acquisition and if the price paid for him wasn't so high?

5. If the Refs really had a bias against the Leafs, wouldn't they be the most penalized team in the league, not the 7th most. Sometimes refs (Hello Kerry Fraser!) are just the suck, no matter what colour jersey the teams happen to be wearing. And how on earth did Cola get away with that trip in the Jersey game if the zebras have it in for the Blue and White?

4. I always presumed the Leafs were bottom of the barrel at the shoot-out because of their shooters. Surprisingly, the shooters are decidedly average - ranked 16th overall - scoring at just a fraction less than the league average (a 0.8% difference). Raycroft's sv% on the shoot-out, on the other hand, is dipping towards the Caps' win percentage...

3. Why do fans bring up dumb things Leafs may have done when discussing the current rash of meat head plays in the NHL? What do any of Domi's past transgressions (Samuelson, Niedermayer, Arvedson, marital infidelity) have to do with what I might think of as appropriate discipline for Neil, Janssen, Simon and Tootoo?

2. What does this team really need in the off-season? Let me clarify that, what minor tinkering will MLSE undertake as part of their master plan? It's clear they can generate sufficient offence off the back-end (and there's such little flex with those contracts it seems the top 6 spots are locked down) but the club can't keep the puck out of their own net. Maybe a solid back-up goalie, someone that can eat PK minutes and a new special teams coach behind the bench to take a fresh approach to a moribund pk.

1. How many "must win" games can a team lose before the term must-win has no currency? Seems to me, the Leafs have lost three of the last four must-win games, which of course means Saturday night's match-up against the Sabres at the ACC is a must-win game.

Re-examining the Perrault deal

When the Perrault deal went down, I had two issues with it (discussed in detail here and here) in short:

1. It didn't address or fix any of the core needs of the club (PK, defensive play)
2. The opportunity cost was quite high (spare parts were dealt, the Leafs' problems remained) and never seemed to be part of the equation for MLSE or anyone else evaluating the deal

Well, seven games into the Perrault era, add two more issues to the list:

1. The supposed depth on the Leafs D is gone when they need it most
2. The Leafs knowingly traded Bell and a 2nd rounder for damaged goods

If there's one-lesson to be learned from last year's playoffs it's that there's no such thing as having too many D (c.f. Buffalo).

Now with injuries to Kaberle, Colaiacovo and Hal Gill (who did return to the game after getting stitched up) the Leafs had to rush back an injured Pavel Kubina and dress a healthy Wade Belak. McCabe logged 29 minutes against the Caps and will have to be good to go again Saturday night. I'd much rather have Bell available to fill-in on the blueline right now, but instead we have Perrault and his bum shoulder...

So to recap, that's our suddenly much needed depth on D and a second round pick for this:

Game	G	A	+/-	Total TOI	PP TOI	PK TOI	FO%
at Washington	0	0	-1	7:47	00:38	00:00	100%
Tampa Bay	0	0	0	6:24	00:58	00:00	37.5%
Ottawa	-	-	---	----	Scratched	----	---
at Ottawa	0	0	0	10:53	2:14	00:00	50%
Washington	1	0	+1	6:51	00:45	00:00	75%
Buffalo	0	0	0	13:10	2:53	00:00	56.2%
at New Jersey	0*	0	-1	13:38	4:16	00:00	87.5%

Dressed for six out of seven games, one goal, no assists, -1, avg. 09:47 ice time per game. Wow. Nice work JFJ!

Raycroft, Maurice and Aubin

Given that Raycroft seems to struggle when he's tired/ plays too much hockey and given that the Washington match-up was allegedly the easier of the two back-to-back games this weekend, was anyone else surprised that Maurice gave Raycroft the start?

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Aubin to face the Caps and keep Raycroft fresh for the Habs?

Instead, Raycroft has to play back-to-back after another erratic start (goal #1 was horrible and I'm sure he'd like a mulligan on #4) in a big, pressure filled game in a city where his last start resulted in a .688 sv% and an early trip to the showers.

This speaks to a larger question: if Maurice and MLSE have such little faith in Aubin (9 starts out of 71 this season) why did the team decide to move Telly and knowing Raycroft breaks down under a heavy workload, why haven't they found an adequate back-up to help spell-off Raycroft?

DEADline day

Wow.

There are so many things wrong with the Yannic Perrault trade I don’t even know where to begin.

For your consideration:

A) The Leafs are in a dog fight to make the post-season. Sitting in 10th place, they have a crushing schedule ahead of them and have to leap frog at least three teams to finish in 8th.

The biggest problems facing this club are:
1. Weak team defense
2. Inconsistent goaltending
3. Horrific penalty killing

B) The GM has gone on and on (and on and on) about the need to build from within. He has been very public about his plan to re-stock the cupboard and develop those cheap, young kids who can contribute.

C) The Leafs have a preponderance of centres and there most pressing need at forward is clearly a quality winger to play with Mats Sundin

Is there anyone that can take points A, B and C and conclude that the logical next step is to deal a young defensive prospect and a second round pick for 20 games worth of a soft, career minus centre that spends less than 30 seconds a game on the PK?

Anyone see the value in a second round pick and a prospect for a UFA who will leave for nothing in the off-season? Oh, and for those of you who don’t think a second round pick is too high a price to pay, the Leafs dealt a second rounder at the deadline for Aki Berg and the Kings ended up with Mike Cammalleri.

Anyone?

And finally, this has to put an end to the rumour that JFJ will lose his job if the Leafs don't qualify for the post-season. Because if that were true and JFJ's lone move was to deal for Perrault, this team is in far more trouble than I ever imagined.

C'est Fini

Comment dit, "Stick a fork in 'em" en francais?

According to the players on the Leafs, every game at this time of year is a playoff match. Do or die. Put up or shut-up. Win or golf.

Well, it looks like golf.

G1: Loss to the Isles 3-2
G2: Win over Philly 4-2
G3: Win over Edmonton 4-3
G4: Loss to the Bruins 3-0
G5: Loss to Isles 3-2
G6: Win over Philly 5-2
G7: Loss Montreal 5-4

Three for seven when it's do or die.

Three for seven against some of softest competition in the NHL. Philadelphia was without Forsberg in the first match-up, without Knuble in the second and were playing a third string goalie who went on waivers today. Boston played without Murray, Bergeron and Boyes. Montreal has only won 3 of their past 10.

Three for seven, by my math and knowledge of the playoffs is, rather fittingly for this year's squad, the equivalent of elimination.

They couldn't make the playoffs last year and JFJ sat on his hands at the trade deadline.

They won't make the playoffs this year.

Unless JFJ has a change of heart in the next 16 hours, they'll pretty much all be back to try again next year.

Anyone like their chances in 2008?

Tucker

Damien Cox at the Star broke a big story this morning: the Leafs have apparently inked Tucker to a three (or four) year deal at about $3M per year.

It will be interesting to see what the actual terms of the contract are when MLSE makes it official. My understanding of the CBA is that option years are prohibited, so I’m not sure how the fourth year might be structured.

I don’t think $3M is out of line and a three year term is preferable to anything longer, but I would have liked JFJ to move Tucker* for picks and prospects. Unfortunately, such a deal would certainly throw a wrench into JFJ’s apparent need to make the post-season in order to keep his job. While another first round pick would be a great thing for this club to have and would certainly be in line with JFJ’s build-from-within-plan (if such a plan actually existed) it will be years before that pick can bang in a cross-crease pass on the power play and that’s what really seems to matter to MLSE with 20 games left to go this season.

*Why move Tucker? Here are 10 good reasons:

1. He’s a small man playing a big man’s role and he’s on the wrong side of 30 (32 next month actually). How long before his body starts to break down?
2. In 12 NHL seasons, he’s only played the full schedule twice
3. He's not much of a penatly killer, he’s weak at 5 on 5 (he’s -64 for his career) - what the heck do you do with him and the monster contract it’s going to take to keep him when his hands start to go?
4. Since coming to the Leafs he’s averaged 19.8 goals a season (not including this injury shortened year). I’m not knocking 20 goals, but $3.5M+ and a non-trade or a no-movement clause is way too much to pay for that level of performance (interesting that many only want O’Neill and his 20 goals back at his current salary but they’ll pay double for Tucker)
5. The team hasn’t suffered in his absence. With Tucker in the line-up the Leafs are 18-16-5 that's a .526 winning percentage; without Tucker they’re 10-7-3 a .650 winning percentage
6. In 62 playoff games, Tucker has 10 goals and is a -5. Somehow if this team makes the post-season, I don't think that level of performance is going to be the difference between hoisting the Cup and going home early.
7. If Nagy’s eight goals are worth a first rounder and a player, Tucker has to be worth more, lots more.
8. If the Leafs really can’t live without Tucker, let’s learn from some of the other GMs and do what the Blues and Penguins managed to do with Weight and Recchi – deal them at the deadline and sign them back in the off-season.
9. This team missed the playoffs last year and is on the bubble this year. In a hard cap environment with $19 million tied up (and seemingly unmovable) on D, I really don’t see how the team can commit $3.5 to $4M for Tucker and hope to get better next year.
10. This year’s UFA crop is rich in forwards, the club would be better off allocating Peca’s $2.5M and Tucker’s $3.5M to someone who can pick up the crown and lead this club once Mats calls it quits.

A Series of Compounding Errors

When the Leafs played Nashville a week or so ago, Joe Bowen (or one of the Leaf play by play guys) paraphrased Barry Trotz as saying "When teams, like the Leafs, are battling for their playoff lives little things tend to get magnified."

Think missed calls, bad penalties, weak goals - you know all the hallmarks of a typical Leaf game, streak, season, decade, forty-year drought (take your pick).

And so it comes to this...Sundin, inexplicably, gets a goal called back (nice work NHL. I know I ranted about this once before but would a timely explanation or some accountability be too much to ask? And wouldn't it have been the right call for Sportsnet to cite the Fraser call as the turning point of the game?); McCabe (after a horrible pinch) gets called for a very marginal hooking penalty (his stick was on and off that player faster than you could say "bad contract JFJ") and the Isles tie it up on the powerplay.

In OT, Sundin gets taken down like Steve Simmons on a Leaf fan discussion board and there's no call (hey NHL - it's a dive, a trip, or both - even the culprit Satan thought he was headed to the box).

And so it goes into the books as a shoot-out loss.

Oh, and here's more good news: the Isles now own the tie-breaker should they finish the season tied with the Leafs for 8th PPP has correctly pointed out that the Leafs still own the tiebreaker, so we've got that going for us.

My point isn't to bemoan the bad calls in one game (although that's always fun).

My point is this: it's time MLSE iced a team where non-calls and marginal penalties weren't the difference between life and death.

It's time MLSE set about icing a team where one blown call in February didn't loom over this club like some airborne toxic event.

I firmly believe that unless JFJ dramatically changes the composition of this team, I will spend all of next year with the Leafs stuck at .500, anxiously watching this same tightrope walk. Another season wasted on a team that's perpetually one stupid call away from being outside the playoffs once again.

I said weeks ago that I doubted this team has the stuff to make the post-season, never mind make it out of the first round.

But for those Leaf fans who are holding out hope for the playoffs, thinking this year's version of the Leafs might do some damage if they make the post-season dance, consider this: if the Leafs were in a four game series against the Isles, they'd be down 2-0.

Factor in: the recent 3-0 loss against the Bruins, the fact that this team holds a lead about as well as Ashley Simpson holds her liquor, that scintillating sub .500 home record and the fact that no team seeded lower than fifth has ever won the cup and I can't say I'm with you delusional Leaf fans optimists on this one.

And how bad is it that "making the playoffs" remains a stretch for this organization? Over half the freakin' league qualifies and yet the Leafs struggle to even attain that mediocre level of "success"

Sell.

Trade all the UFAs.

Play the kids and any prospects we get back.

Scout the hell out of all the pending UFAs and spend accordingly in the off-season.

From here on out, it shouldn't be about trying to hit that 8th spot, trying to get 2 more home dates for the pension fund, hoping Kerry Fraser isn't going to stick-it to the Leafs again.

Winning one round of the playoffs isn't what I'm after either.

Two rounds won't cut it.

A successful season for Leaf Nation should be winning the Cup. Nothing less.

Isn't it time MLSE started to think the same way?


Oh, and for the record: I hate the shoot-out. Even had the Leafs won, I still think it's an absolutely preposterous way to finish a game. If Bettman and his suits want to entertain the fans, get some TV coverage and have everyone talking at the water coolers he should have Raycroft fight DiPietro at Centre Ice, winner take all...I'm guessing that the Emery tilt will get more coverage than any of the shootout results that went down on the same night. ***UPDATE*** Deadspin, which I love even though they never post about hockey, has already posted highlights of the Emery fight, quickly generating 80+ comments...

Smolinski? D-Man? Kicking Tires?

“I always turn to the sports pages first, which record people’s accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man’s failures.” - Justice Earl Warren

This is a really great quote, but I have to wonder what Justice Warren would say in the age of blogs.

I too always read the sports pages first and today the Globe just left me shaking my head. No, not because they're recording failure, but because they're failing to provide any discerning insight.

I thought print media was supposed to be one format that had a bit more room for analysis and nuance, not falling into the either/or camp: you're either with us or against us; for fighting in hockey or opposed to fighting; a trade deadline buyer or a trade deadline seller... I guess I was wrong.

Shoalts says, given the prices:

The best thing for the Toronto Maple Leafs would be for John Ferguson to return from the general managers meetings in Florida this week empty-handed.

Really? Wouldn't the best thing be for JFJ to identify his spare parts and sell them at these high prices? Shouldn't Shoalts editor have helped him out here a little, I mean he almost completes this thought with this observation:

There is another reason to hold off on a trade: The Leafs are playing their best hockey of the season since the injuries began to pile up in January.

Based on that, and the fact that some of the Leafs "best players" are out, how much of a mental leap is it to conclude that the strong play of late may be the best reason for the Leafs to look at moving Tucker or Peca, especially if they're looking for an experienced D-man as he claims. Or does that fall too far out of the buyer/seller dichotomy?

I also found his observation that the Leafs might move a 3rd or 4th round pick for Smolinski to be straight out of the blue...on a team with 117 centres, that's fifth in the NHL in offense why would adding another offensive centre to the mix make any sense? Unfortunately, Shoalts doesn't offer a rational for that trade...he just leaves it hanging there.

His colleague across town Damien Cox filed the report I was looking for - giving us the context of the market, listing what the Leafs are looking for: experienced, skilled, big forward (although the question still remains, why? What is it that Maurice and Ferguson see in this club that a big forward would add) ; what the Leafs are willing to move (excess young D like Bell, Woz, Kronwall) and when they'd like to get a deal done (ASAP).

===
Can the MLSE PR department not get better head shots of JFJ out to all of the media outlets? I'm no fan of JFJ, but it would be nice to see the media run a shot of this guy where he isn't frowning, scowling or furrowing his brow...there must be a neutral, or heaven forbid, happy shot of this guy somewhere that the papers could run.

Cracks in the Foundation

TSN has an interesting post on the on-going negotiations between MLSE and Darcy Tucker's camp, including the news that Tucker is looking for a no-movement clause.

Great. A no-movement clause. That's just what you want to give out in a hard-capped, guaranteed contract environment - especially to a hard-playing small bodied 32 year old who is approaching the brittle years of his career. Even better when your club already has 1/3 of its salary tied up in just three players on the blue line.

I know these things are played out in the media as part of the on-going negotiations between filthy rich athletes and the mega-corporations that employ them, but if MLSE can't ink this guy for less than $3.5M/year for 3 years without a NMC he should be dealt.

Oh wait, TSN quoted JFJ as saying what?

"I don't see too many playoff worthy teams shedding top players at the deadline. I would call that atypical."

Man, I hope JFJ is using "atypical" in the same way that it's atypical for a team to be this bad defensively while employing the second highest paid defence in the league.

Or maybe JFJ meant atypical like telling everyone you have a "Master Plan" that's all about building from within and then dealing your top ranked goaltending prospect for Raycroft...

Perhaps it's "top players" that JFJ is having trouble defining. Maybe by "top players" he means players that don't have a broken foot.

Parsing that sentence further it's the word shedding that's the clue, the Leafs won't be shedding Darcy they'll be trading him. Yeah, that's it...

Ah hell, JFJ is going to ink this guy to a four year, $15M+ deal with a big fat non-movement clause. The Leafs will be maxed out to the cap again thereby limiting their ability to make deals. Three years from now, MLSE GM Garth Snow will have to waive Tucker and the team will eat $1.88M in Salary...

One other thing to consider:
With Tucker, the Leafs are 18-16-5 that's a .526 winning percentage
Without Tucker, the Leafs are 9-6-1 good for a .593 winning percentage

False Dichotomies

As the trade deadline approaches, the dominant media frame is clearly this:

i) the Leafs have to qualify for the post-season if JFJ is going to hold on to his job
ii) given the injuries plaguing the team, in order to make the playoffs, JFJ may have to be a buyer at the trade deadline.

This results in simple "buyer v. seller" media coverage rather than addressing some of the bigger questions about the future of the Maple Leafs.

I’d like to take a step back from this media frame and ask a few questions:

1. Does anyone have a quote from anyone senior at MLSE or any other source indicating that JFJ needs to hit the post-season to keep his job?
2. The Leafs are facing a Herculean task to qualify for the post-season looking at picking up at least 18 wins in the remaining 30 games. Any probability experts out there who want to calculate what odds are longer: the Leafs making the post-season or their scouts drafting an impact player from the soft-middle ground the Leafs seem to permanently inhabit (not good enough to threaten the post-season, not bad enough to draft high).
3. Shouldn’t continued employment as the GM be contingent on achieving the best possible end for the organization?
4. Why does the media have to deal in these false dichotomies…there’s more than two ways forward for this team (hint: they’re playing great hockey without Tucker...)
5. Speaking of which, when it comes to dealing with Tucker’s impending UFA status, can’t JFJ figure out how to do what St.Louis and Pittsburgh did last year with Weight and Recchi respectively. Trade him to a contender with an implicit/informal agreement that he’ll re-sign back with the Leafs in the off-season. Get something for him now and get him signed up long-term in the summer.

Funny how a little win streak can change the way you look at things.

Does anyone really think the best thing for Leaf fans is to keep the bulk of this team together for next year?

SELL!

When the Leafs resume play on January 27th there will be exactly one month until the NHL trade deadline.

That’s one month for the Leafs to figure out if they’re buyers, sellers or if once more they’re going to make a series of useless, lateral moves.

The Leafs may be tied for the 8th and final playoff spot, but they’ve also played more games than their competition. If you look at winning percentage, the Leafs currently sit 11th in the East (and 22nd overall in the NHL – way to go MLSE!)

1. Buffalo .714
2. New Jersey .656
3. Atlanta .620
4. Montreal .602
5. Ottawa .580
6. Carolina .560
7. Pittsburgh .543
8. Tampa Bay .540

9. Boston .522
10. New York .521
11. Toronto .510
12. Washington .490

Presuming it will take 92+ points to qualify for the post-season, the Leafs will have to post at minimum 42 points in their next 33 games. That’s about a .636 winning percentage, something that I just don’t think this club is capable of, especially if you look at the Leafs’ performance so far this year.

Breaking the season to date into 10 game blocks, here’s how the Leafs have fared this year:

1 – 10 .550% (4-3-3)
11 – 20 .750 (7-2-1)
21-30 .250 (2-7-1)
31-40 .450 (4-5-1)
40-49 .555 (5-4-0)

While the Leafs did manage to real off a great streak in games 11 through 20, they followed that up with their worst play of the season. In fact, their best 30 game stretch produced just 13 wins and 31 points.

If the Leafs play at that pace (their best of the season) they’ll finish the year with about 83 points.

That’s nowhere good enough to qualify for the post season.

Considering their erratic play to date, a winning percentage of .636% just doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Factor in long-term injuries to Wellwood (35 points in 31 games), Peca (without him the PK fell from a dismal 17th in the league to an atrocious 25th) and a fracture to Tucker’s foot and the odds of the Leafs stringing together a serious winning streak seem about as likely as Antropov threatening Doug Jarvis’ 964 game iron man record.

Looking at this, I have one-word for Mr. Ferguson – sell.

I’m not saying tank it.

I’m not saying the Leafs should play soft, play small, not compete.

I am saying it’s time for Ferguson to look at the assets that are on this club that have the potential to walk for nothing in the off-season, to look at the big picture of where this club needs to be to seriously challenge in the post-season and to move these assets now.

If Ferguson wants to be the GM of the big club, it’s time for him to show that he’s capable of doing something grander than Tellqvist for a fourth rounder or Perrot for a sixth and that he’s smarter than, oh say trading a top ranked goaltending prospect for a guy who can’t crack the top 30 in goals against or save percentage.*

Say goodbye to UFAs O'Neill, Tucker, Peca, Antropov, Green, Battaglia, Devereaux, re-stock the draft cupboard and let the kids play.

*For those of you keeping score out there, here’s how Raycroft stacks up against Legace, a guy the Leafs could have had for half the salary while keeping Rask in the fold:
Goals Against: Legace 2.69 18th; Raycroft 3.10 31st
Save Percentage: Legace .907% 21st; Raycroft .892% 36th
Nice work JFJ!

Deadlines

With so little going on in Leaf land, I thought I’d post a quick bit on the off-season moves and a longer bit on what it might mean for the future of the organization…

The Good
JFJ redeemed himself by buying out Domi and declining Belfour’s option. He managed to plug the 3 and 4 spots on D although he paid a ridiculous price in the process.

The Bad
There’s a glut of goalies out there and it’s clearly a buyer’s market. The Leafs trade one of their top prospects for…a goalie.

The Ugly (or maybe just confusing)
Wade Belak gets a contract extension.


I’ve been thinking about these off-season moves and how it positions the Leafs for the season ahead.

While the front office appears to have solidified the blue line brigade, I have no idea who’s going to score on this team, especially in five on five situations. Just like last season, goaltending remains a giant spinning roulette wheel that could come up 00 or .879 (one of the worst save percentages in the league for all of you TML scrapbookers out there).

I’ve come to the (common and not so shocking conclusion) that the lack of depth at forward, the question marks between the pipes and the improvements of several teams in the east means the Leafs will once again be life and death to make the playoffs.

Thinking about the overall health and direction of this organization (big-picture stuff here, think JFJ’s dreaded P-word, but with an actual plan attached) the future of this franchise will likely turn on JFJ’s abilities at the trade deadline. Stick with me here.

As far as I can tell, there are three ways* the season can unfold. In all three cases the trade deadline looms large:

1. The Leafs stink it up and are clearly out of the playoff hunt
2. The Leafs put up a decent season and are a virtual lock to make the post-season dance
3. The Leafs play slightly better than .500 hockey, flirt with the 95 point mark and have decent odds to scrape into 8th

In the first scenario, the Leafs should be sellers at the Trade deadline looking to maximize returns on what must clearly be a non-competitive roster. The biggest question in this scenario would have to be whether or not JFJ is still the GM when it comes time to hold the fire sale (and whether MLSE follows the outside the box thinking of the Islanders and hires Tvellquist as the next GM).

If the season plays out as described in scenario 2, JFJ has to decide what the Leafs may need, if anything, to keep up with divisional rivals and to improve the odds of the team going deeper into the post-season. Standing pat here might be the best option.

Scenario 3 is last year’s model and clearly the worst situation for this team to be in. JFJ will be faced with a character defining moment - shore up the team to make a desperate playoff run (likely the only way of keeping his job) or move assets to improve the club’s chances of winning in the future?

The good news is, if the Leafs find themselves on the outside looking in come March, there’s going to be lots of great trade bait on the club as UFAs in-waiting include Sundin (team option); Peca; O’Neill; Tucker; Belak, Antropov and Aubin. RFAs in the last year of their contract include: Ponikarovsky; Suglobov; Colaiacovo; Tellqvist and possibly Stajan (who still hasn’t resigned).

It is amazing to think that, even though training camp is weeks away, decisions next March may define the priorities of this organization and will demonstrate if building a real contender is one of them.

*I guess there is a fourth option – but it’s such a long-shot it really only deserves footnote status: in this situation, the Leafs are the beasts of the east. They must decide what the final puzzle piece may be that will put them over the top and how much they are willing to sacrifice to get it.