Showing posts with label 40 Year Drought. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 40 Year Drought. Show all posts

Sunday, December 19, 2010

The Leafs and Post-Season Droughts

Former Cox Bloc writer Godd Till has an interesting post up over at Pension Plan Puppets, where they're doing a Leaf-centric 12 days of Christmas (I wrote day 5, which can be read here).

Till's wish for day 6 is that the Leafs put-up six consecutive years of consistent play, complete with post-season appearances.

His post reminded me of how long it's been since the Leafs played a game that actually, genuinely mattered. I'm not talking about late season nail biters to see if this team can squeak into the post-season. I'm talking about OT games with no threat of a shootout, or the thrill and tension of a game 7 where an entire season is on the line.

It also made me wonder how the Leafs' current five year drought (sure to be six next April) stacks up against the rest of the NHL.

Looking at the chart below, I suppose the good news is the Leafs have a long way to go before they break any NHL records for futility...


Team



Playoff Drought



Seasons



NJ Devils***



9



79-87



Florida



9



01-10



Washington*



8



74-82



NY Rangers



7



97 - 04



NY Islanders



7



94-01



Columbus*



7



00-07



Detroit



7



70-77



Calgary



7



96-03



Pittsburgh



6



82-88



Atlanta*



6



00-06



Tampa Bay



6



96-02



Carolina***



6



92-98



LA Kings



6



02-08



Phoenix



6



02-08



Philadelphia



5



89-94



Chicago**



5



02-07



Nashville



5



98-03



Colorado***



5



87-92



Toronto



5



05-10



Ottawa*



4



92-96



Vancouver



4



96-00



Edmonton



4



92-96 | 06-10



Montreal



3



98-01



Buffalo



3



99-01 | 01-04



St.Louis



3



05-08



Dallas



3



73-76



Anaheim



3



93-96* | 99-02



Boston**



2



05-07



Minnesota



2



00-02 | 03-05 | 08-10



San Jose



2



91-93* | '95-97



*drought started with their first year in the NHL
** have longer droughts that pre-date 1967
*** drought occurred/is shared with previous franchise (e.g. Whalers, Nordiques)

Friday, September 18, 2009

Phil Kessel is a Leaf

The Leafs acquired Phil Kessel from the Boston Bruins for two first round picks, a second round pick and a reported five year $27.2 million deal that carries a $5.2M cap hit.

Kessel is coming off shoulder surgery and will be out until November, possibly December.

By the numbers, Kessel has put up:

70GP 11-18-29pts
82GP 19-18-37
70GP 36-24-60

That's a very nice progression with all signs pointing in the right direction.

That breakthrough year came while playing with gifted centre Marc Savard. It should be noted that Kessel's goals for 60 (GF/60) drops by about 40% when he’s not on the ice with Savard, from 1.246 down to 0.782 and the Leafs don't have any forwards with those type of set-up skills.

A few other things to keep in mind. Kessel plays soft. Monsieur Duvet soft. He had six hits in the entire 2008-09 season (that's not a typo). That works out to about one hit every 12 games.

He doesn't play the PK either.

Sure none of this will matter if he's scoring 30+ goals. But if that surgery didn't go well or if he's lost his soft hands, he doesn't bring much else to the rink. And that's a worry when the Leafs have committed over 10% of their cap to Kessel for the next five years, more if the cap shrinks as it's expected to do.

This is a difficult deal to evaluate, it seems to be contingent on more ifs and hypotheticals than the American's case for war in Iraq.
  • Can Kessel come back from off-season surgery?
  • Can Kessel continue to grow as a player or was his 36 goal year an aberration?
  • Will the Leafs finish outside of the top 10, or could their first rounder be in lottery contention?

Ok, maybe just three big questions.

I'm not crazy about this deal and it's mostly because of timing. The Leafs have kept just three first round picks since 2000 (Tlusty, Schenn, Kadri) and the organization isn't exactly loaded with prospects.

Yes, Burke has done a nice job adding Hanson, Bozak and Stalberg to the club, but those players will be UFAs in two years whereas draft picks are RFAs after three or four.

The Leafs may have just gotten more competitive, but depth and salary control are the keys to building an elite club. Two things the Leafs gave up to land Kessel.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

From Spineless to Incompent: A History of Leafs' GMs

Following a spirited debate at PPP that attempted to quantify the incompetence of former Leafs' GM John Ferguson Junior, the question came up as to who is the worst Leafs GM in the past 35 years.

In an homage to Down Goes Brown, I thought I’d take a quick look at all of the GMs that have managed my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs over the last 40 years to see just where JFJ's tenure ranks.

The candidates:
1969 – 1979 Jim Gregory
1979 – 1981 Punch Imlach
1981 – 1988 Gerry McNamara
1988 – 1989 Gord Stellick
1989 – 1991 Floyd Smith
1991 – 1997 Cliff Fletcher
1997 – 1999 Ken Dryden
1999 – 2003 Pat Quinn
2003 – 2008 JFJ

Part I: 1969 to 1989

1969 – 1979 Jim Gregory

Winning %: .506

Playoff Appearances: 8 for 10

Drafted: Darryl Sittler, Lanny MacDonald, Mike Palmateer, Ian Turnbull, Dave Tiger Williams, Doug Jarvis, Randy Carlyle, John Anderson, Joel Quenville

Best Trade: Acquired Bernie Parent and Rick Kehoe for Bruce Gamble, Mike Walton and a 1st round pick

Worst Trade: Doug Jarvis for Greg Hubick

The Back Story
Replaced Leaf GM Punch Imlach for the 1969-70 season (I wasn’t born yet). The 1976 season is the first Leaf club I can remember cheering for.

The Good
Gregory was one of the first GMs to recognize European talent, landing the Leafs Borje Salming and Inge Hammarstrom.

Drafted iconic Leafs MacDonald, Sittler, Palmateer and brought Roger Neilson into the NHL with his first head coaching gig.

The team knocked off the Islanders in 1977 and in 1978 made it to the Stanley Cup Finals (yeah, they were swept by the Habs but the team was on the right track).

The Bad
In a word: Ballard.

In 1971, Harold Ballard became majority owner of the Leafs, Maple Leaf Gardens and appointed himself President and Chairman of the Leafs’ Board.

Under Ballard’s direction the Leafs lost Bernie Parent to the WHA and let Dave Keon’s contract expire in 1975 (Ballard then blocked Keon’s attempted return to the NHL from the WHA in 1980 as the Leafs still owned his NHL rights).

Allegedly, it was Ballard who made the deal with Sam Pollock that sent future hall of famer Doug Jarvis to the Habs for 72 games of Greg Hubick.

The Crazy
In 1972, Ballard was sentenced to nine years in prison for 47 counts of fraud. Ultimately, he finished serving his sentence in 1973. Allegedly, it was during one of his stays in a correctional facility that the Leafs were able to sign Salming and Hammarstrom as Ballard was notorious for his opposition to European players.

Ballard forced Gregory to fire coach Roger Neilson and, when the players lobbied for Neilson’s re-instatement Ballard relented, but he asked Neilson to return wearing a bag over his head to start the game. Neilson, smartly, declined to wear the bag.

On the patented DGB How bad was it? 100 point scale: 80 – the Leafs fielded pretty competitive teams throughout the decade and amassed a fair amount of talent. By the end of the 1970s they were actively competing against the dynasties in Montreal and on Long Island. Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough and Ballard brought back Punch Imlach.

1979 - 1981 Punch Imlach

Winning %: .456

Playoff Appearances: 2 for 2

Notable draft picks: Craig Muni, Bob McGill, Jim Benning

Best Trade: Acquired Rick Vaive and Bill Derlago for Tiger Williams and Jerry Butler

Worst Trade: Dealt Lanny MacDonald for Wilf Paiment and Pat Hickey

The Back Story
As per an earlier post on the 1979-1980 Leafs, Punch Imlach was brought in by Harold Ballard to help get the Leafs over a, ahem, small hump known as the Montreal Canadiens.

The ‘79 Leafs were a promising club led by all-stars Darryl Sittler, Lanny MacDonald and Borje Salming, with a pretty solid supporting cast of Mike Palmateer, John Anderson, Dan Maloney, Ron Ellis and Joel Quenville.

The Good
The Leafs acquired future captain and 50 goal man Rick Vaive...and that’s pretty much it.

The Bad
Imlach promptly put his ugly stamp on the club by trading Lanny MacDonald - fan favourite, 48 goal man and best pal of captain Darryl Sittler - along with Joel Quenville to Colorado for future Leon’s furniture pitch-man Wilf Paiement and Pat Hickey (who in my child hood memories could only score on the backhand. 38 goals in 120 games isn' tbad, but he struck me as terrible).

The Crazy
Imlach’s tenure was a rocky one, marked by serious conflict with the players and what seemed to be a weekly heart attack.

He sued the NHLPA in an effort to keep Sittler, Palmateer and others out of my favourite boy-hood program: Showdown (Palmateer makes Jeff O'Neill look like a paragon of fitness in that clip).

Late in the 1979-80 season, Leafs coach Floyd Smith was injured in a car accident, and after Dick Duff stepped behind the bench for two bad losses, Imlach appointed himself Head Coach. Imlach went 5-5-0 before being swept by the Minnesota North Stars in the first round of the playoffs.

Imlach was never actually fired. After yet another heart attack (his third or fourth), he returned to work in November of 1981 only to find Gerry MacNamara had his job. In the end, Ballard just let Imlach’s contract expire.

On the patented DGB How bad was it? 100 point scale: 92. This was the beginning of a long downward slide, made all the more painful because of the actual promise the Leafs had showed. Just two years removed from their first appearance in the semi-finals in a decade and one year off a solid series against the Montreal Canadiens, the Leafs broke up a solid core of players and the team would not hit .500 again for a decade.


Harold Ballard, interim GM, August to December 1980
Little known leaf fact: In August of 1980, after Imlach suffered one of his 624 heart attacks, Ballard appointed himself interim GM of the Leafs. During this time, he took Darryl Sittler off the trade market, agreed that Sittler would return as the Leafs captain for the 1980-81 season and signed Borje Salming to a contract extension. Likely the two best things that rat bastard ever did for the Leafs.


1981 – 1988 Gerry McNamara

Winning %: .367 (that’s not a typo)

Playoff Appearances: 4 for 7 (that’s not a typo either)

Notable draft picks: Wendel Clark, Gary Leeman, Russ Courtnall, Al Iafrate, Todd the ever dangerous Gill, Vince Damphousse, Luke Richardson

Best Trade: um, Greg Terrion for a 4th round pick? Tom Fergus for Bill Derlago? Not much to choose from here...

Worst Trade: Sittler for Rich Costello, 2nd round pick and Ken Strong or 1st round pick (Scott Niedermayer) for Tom Kurvers.

The Back Story
Not much to tell. A former hockey player and career Leaf employee, McNamara had some success as a scout and had been an assistant GM to Imlach. As GM, he somehow lasted through seven disastrous seasons.

The Good
With the Leafs unable to compete on the ice, the team amassed a number of solid draft picks, including Wendel Clark.

They somehow managed to sweep the Hawks in ’86 and also made the second round of the playoffs in 1987.

Um, did I mention Wendel Clark?

The Bad
This could be a never ending post.

This is the era of the pedophilia ring at Maple Leaf Gardens.

The Leafs didn’t have a single winning season under McNamara.

Not once did they have a season where they scored more goals than they allowed.

In 1985, the Leafs won just twenty games and finished 32 games under .500

In a panic move, after keeping the Leafs’ first round draft picks for his entire tenure, McNamara deals the team’s first pick to New Jersey for Tom Kurvers. New Jersey went on to select Scott Neidermayer.

Before being fired, McNamara’s Leafs went on a 1-15-6 run, posting a single victory over 22 games.

The Crazy
The Sittler trade talks were so protracted, Sittler walked out on the Leafs under the advice of his physician and the deal still took two more weeks to go down.

McNamara kept his job for nearly a decade despite the team never breaking the 70 point barrier.

On the patented DGB How bad was it? 100 point scale: 95. McNamara re-defined incompetence. Despite having a number of high draft picks, the Leafs seemed permanently mired in mediocrity. In these times of three point games, its’ hard to imagine a club putting up a .367 winning percentage for a single season, never mind the better part of a decade. The only upside was there were zero expectations for the club. This wasn’t a team that flirted with success and broke your heart, this was a team that backed into the playoffs when the Red Wings had a 40 point season.

1988 – 1989 Gord Stellick

Winning %: .390 (28-46-8)

Playoff Appearances: 0 for 1

Notable draft picks: The all Belleville Bulls draft: Rob Pearson, Scott Thornton and Steve Bancroft (three first round picks, three duds).

Best Trade: Ken Wregget dealt for 2 first round picks

Worst Trade: Russ Courtnall for John Kordic

The Back Story

Gord Stellick was a member of the Leafs communications staff who was tapped in April 1988 to become the Leafs GM. He was the youngest GM in the history of the Leafs and the NHL. He lasted 18 months. Then it was on to a lifetime of broadcasting, pimpin' for weight loss programs and writing books about 1967, because that's what Leaf fans really want to be reminded of.

The Good

It was a short stay.

The Bad

Ballard continued his meddlesome ways, dictating coaching choices and player personnel moves.

Despite amassing draft picks, the Leafs drafted poorly.

The Crazy

The usual Ballard stuff.

Stellick resigned as GM when Ballard refused to let him hire his own coach for the 1989 season.

On the patented DGB How bad was it? 100 point scale: 90. More of the same terrible on-ice product, meddlesome ownership, poor drafting and lack of vision. At this point, being a Leaf fan was like being on some sort of long march to nowhere.


Coming Soon: Part II - Floyd Smith to JFJ (bookends of incompetence).

Friday, October 31, 2008

It has a nice ring when you laugh at the low life opinions

Dear Most Valuable Losers:

Yesterday, continuing a long-standing trend, another Toronto reporter took a cheap shot at Leaf fans. This time it was Howard Berger who called us "losers" but we've seem the same cookie-cutter article from virtually everyone who covers the team.

Quite frankly, we've had enough.

As fans, we believe that those most deserving of our praise and our scorn are directly involved in the game, whether it's on the ice, in the press box or in the executive corridors. Fans don't pencil in the starting five, make bad trades, or write the headlines of the day and shouldn't be blamed (or praised) for the totals in the wins and loss column.

Hockey may be just a game but it's also a passion. If you're looking for passionate hockey coverage that offers insight and humour and you're sick of being blamed for supporting a team you're passionate about, you have a better option.

It's time to leave the media superstars behind. There's compelling, timely, wide-ranging content waiting just for you online in the Barilkosphere.

Many have found this better way of following the Leafs, but not every Leafs fan has been so lucky. Please send this message to your fellow Leaf fans via e-mail or postings on message boards and let them know that they do have a choice.

We hope you'll join us here in the Barilkosphere and become regular readers and contributors.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore

Top 10 Items I'd like to See Banned from Leafs Coverage

10. Ubiquitous references to 1967/40-x years (and counting).

I don’t see 1975 in the Flyers headlines, 1955 in every article about the Black Hawks or "never" in write-ups of the Blues, Canucks, Sharks, Sens, etc. Seems most people who remotely follow hockey know the Leafs haven’t won the Cup in over 40 years.

This descriptor is about as fresh as the box of baking soda that went into the freezer with Walt Disney and about as insightful as Charles Duell’s most famous quote.

9. Tank v. Try

Pretty much the epitome of false dichotomy. Or is it Morton’s Fork?

8. Reducing the Leafs cup count to 11.

We get it. Yes the Arenas/St. Pats won 2 cups prior to officially becoming the Leafs, but removing those cups belittles the media more than it does the team or the fans. The owner and team name may have changed, but the bulk of the rosters remained with the team the following season.

Does anyone think the Twins can't count their World Series win as the Washington Senators; the Colts can't count Super Bowls won in Baltimore; the 76ers can't count titles won as the Nationals; and poor Sacramento should lose their NBA title from 1951?

Must trophy counts be re-set every time a team is bought, sold, moved or has a name change?

7. Any discussion of Sundin's future.

If and when he signs, there will be entire forests wiped out to generate newsprint for the resulting coverage. Until then, I don't think we need another special filmed at his dock or bad translations from Swedish newspapers...

6. Fan-centric "reporting"

The Ottawa media doesn't work the locals' apathy/insecurity into every story. The bandwagon isn't the lead item in Vancouver. Arson, white flight and a deep-seated love of Beef on Weck don't make the Sabres' game recaps.

So why do the day-to-day concerns, worries and wallets of Leafs Nation get such prominent play in every article from game summaries to in-depth features?

If I wanted to know what Tony from Woodbridge thought about the state of the Leafs specialty teams, I’d listen to a phone-in sports radio show and hear it directly from the source.

It's lazy, doesn't add value and it's not telling me anything new. Lose it.

5. Turning 1 or 2 game results into major trend pieces

It’s like identifying NFL trends based on a single quarter or half of a football game. How about a little perspective and some big picture analysis?

4. Complaining about the Leafs being on HNIC.

There are so many things wrong with these type of stories.

First: the Leafs play in Canada’s largest media market and the number five or six market in North America. There are more people in the golden-horseshoe than can be found in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta combined.

Second: Ratings don’t lie.

Third: Let’s look at who this really affects: if you’re in the Ottawa valley, you get Sens games. If you're in Quebec, you get Habs games (RDS also carries all 82 Montreal Canadiens matches). If you’re in Alberta or BC, the HNIC early game is on at 4 or 5PM and one of the Flames, Oilers and Canucks will be on during Prime Time.

That means the only people “stuck” with the Leafs live between Winnipeg and Belleville. If they don’t like that ratings, market size and demand are enough to make the Leafs the default HNIC game, they can subscribe to RDS, Center Ice, or explore on-line options (if I can get an NHL game over the web in New Delhi, and the World Juniors in Hyderabad, I'm sure there are ways to avoid the Leafs every Saturday night).

3. Pretty much anything Don "Bochenski for Calder" Cherry has to say.

Someone much smarter than I am called him the Ann Coulter of hockey. Is it a schtick or is he really old-man crazy? Either way, there must be better things to report on that what an old show-man had to say on Saturday night.

2. The "When will Ron Wilson go nuclear on the media?" stories

This media angle is the equivalent of repeatedly poking something with a stick and then filing a sensational report on what happened. It's also a good reminder to never underestimate the media's love of writing about themselves, interviewing fellow journalists or covering existing coverage. This meme is a perfect case in point and a little more than a media-created mess.

Given the inanity of the questions, the size of the media contingent and the lack of quality of much of the end product there is only one right answer here: not soon enough. But let's look at the crux of the story angle here: what does it matter if Wilson snaps? What does it mean if he doesn’t? What value does this potential story bring to our understanding of hockey?


1. Plan the Parade Jokes

My daughter’s favourite joke goes like this:

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Banana

Knock Knock.
Who’s there?
Orange
Orange who?
Orange you glad I didn’t say banana?

I hear this joke about three times a day, seven days a week. It was funny and sort of cute the first time, but now it’s just white noise.

This is what the “plan the parade joke” has become.

But, in the case of the parade joke, it's not coming from an exceptionally adorable five year old who has no idea how tired and played out a joke can become. No, the joke is coming from a cadre of supposedly professionally trained journalists who have been hired and are compensated to provide insight and analysis on Canada’s favourite sport.

It's time for this one to be retired until the Leafs win at least three in a row.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Something I Learned Today

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Release it late on the Friday of a long-weekend;
  2. Release it when there’s a lot of other bad news in the system; and/or
  3. Leak the bad news early and leak it often – by the time the news becomes official or confirmed, most people will have moved through the five stages of grief from anger to acceptance.
When it comes to the Bryan McCabe trade, the Leafs have gone for door number 3 like the RIAA going after a 12 year old with a USB drive full of Jonas Brothers mp3s and the outcome, strangely, seems to be acceptance.

What’s that Smell?

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

Kamloops stunk. Figuratively and literally.

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

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

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

Except the smell never went away.

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

I just lost my ability to detect the stench.

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

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

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

Stick with me here...

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

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

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

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

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

But then step back and look at the numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot believe that I’m going to cite Damien Cox here, but he has a point (ick). The Leafs have moved a pretty big chunk of talent/assets off their roster in the last few years. Consider:
  • Belfour
  • Domi
  • Tucker
  • Wellwood
  • Rask===>Raycroft (should have been ===>ECHL but for the Avs)
  • McCabe
All gone for nothing more than Mike Van Ryn and a series of lingering cap hits.

If shedding all of those players for nothing weren't bad enough, Fletcher has spent even more assets to spackle over the same holes:
  • Mayers for a third round pick
  • Grabovski for a second round pick
  • Schenn for a second and third round pick
  • a Fourth round pick to kiss McCabe goodbye
Changing the Culture: Buying High and Selling Low

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, July 18, 2008

Cheering for Laundry

It's my understanding that Stephen Brunt is a Cleveland Browns fan.

Think about this for a minute.

The man that is, arguably, the best sports writer in Canada cheers for a team that won its last Championship in 1964 and hasn’t won its division since 1989.

A 40+ year drought, bad ownership and no short-term success on the horizon.

Sound familiar?

Yet, up to 16 times a year, Brunt cheers on a team that didn’t even exist from 1996 to 1999; a club the NFL actually “deactivated.”

Now, I don’t know if he collects jerseys, if he wears a dog-mask in his living room on Sunday afternoons or if he gets misty at dinner parties when the topic turns to the death of Jim Brown’s character at the end of the Dirty Dozen.

But this is where his heart resides.

While I have no sense of the depth of Brunt’s fanaticism for the Browns, it does lead me to a larger question: Can you extract the team from the ownership and general idiocy that surrounds it? Can you separate the action on the ice, diamond, pitch or field from the suits/idiots in the corridors of power?

Or is fandom more like a marriage – you fall in love with the team, but you marry the whole family?

As a Leaf fan, it’s pretty obvious why this question is of interest to me.

On the Origins of Fandom: Geography, Patricide and Cheap Souvenirs

I likely became a Leaf fan simply because I was born in Toronto. Geography was destiny. Had I been born in my mum’s home town of Kingston, I’d give even odds that I’d have been a Habs fan (as half of my dirt-eating Ottawa valley family seem to be).

Geography aside, I can remember arguing with my Grandfather in his tiny home in Inverary, Ontario about Ian Turnbull (I was for, he was against). It may have been the first time I stood up to an adult. I remember begging my father to buy me a newspaper so I could look at the pictures of the Leafs eliminating the Islanders in ’78. I remember listening to Leafs on the radio as they went up against the mighty Flyers in ’79 and the elation of waking up to find out Mike Palmateer somehow led the team to a tie.

My first inkling that something was rotten with Leafs ownership didn’t come until Lanny MacDonald was traded and Sittler stripped off the C. I was eight, maybe nine, years old. I still had hope. Clearly I didn’t know any better.

Sometime around 1980-'81 my father came home from a business trip to St. Louis and gave me a Cardinals batting practice jersey. This simple off-white cotton-poly blend with three-quarter length red sleeves has led to nearly three decades of supporting a National League team some 1,200 kilometers away.

My pops liked Joe Theismann because of his days with the Argos (Joe’s, not my Dad’s). When Theismann went to the Washington Redskins, the New York Giants became my team. There’s nothing quite like being a contrarian 12 year old l'il bastard who picks a team simply to cheer against one's father.

A Poll of Sorts

I’d like to know why you cheer for your favourite team.

Was it the smell of the grass in the old Tiger Stadium? A trip to Buffalo to see the Bills back in the days of Kelly, Thomas and Reed? An especially delicious hot fudge sundae from Dairy Queen served in a Mariners cap? Or maybe it was just to spite a certain someone who insisted on cheering for the Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers or Habs?

Please post a comment and tell your story.

I think it's time we shared these stories as a rejoinder to those who question why people cheer for a team with history of failure and mismanagement.

I think it's time for the media to stop and reflect before they call fans stupid for supporting teams with venal owners or teams that don't appear to have a championship on even the most distant horizon.

I'm guessing (and sort of hoping) that the lesson from all of these personal stories is that no fan ever fell in love with a team, player or sport because of an ownership structure, player development policies, salary cap discipline or management style.

We'll see...

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Often Wrong, Never in Doubt

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

Hope is why sports fans return season after season.

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

Hope is what fans do.

Hope is pretty much all that Leaf fans have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you'd be wrong.

Steve Simmons has much to ansewr for



















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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

###

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

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

###

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

Sunday, April 06, 2008

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.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

chamomile nation

As I watched that debacle tonight, it struck me that maybe someone filled the Leafs' water bottles with some sleepy time tea. The stuff that Maurice has suggested fans stock up on.

I only watched the first two periods. Just like most of the Leafs, I didn't stick around for the third but I'll weigh in anyways...

Is anyone really surprised that the Leafs are 1-3 to start the season? I mean other than those fans who can't quite keep the shift key held done when talking about the Leafs!!!!1

Consider:

The 2006-07 Leafs were 25th in goals against.

The six D who were logged the most minutes for the Leafs last season:
1. McCabe
2. Kaberle
3. Kubina
4. Gill
5. White
6. Colaiacovo

The 6 D logging the most minutes this season:
1. Kaberle
2. Kubina
3. McCabe
4. Gill
5. Wozniewski
6. White

Last season, the Leafs were short handed the 11th most in the NHL. To keep it entertaining, the Leafs ran the PK like an old episode of Show Down, with the space around Raycroft’s glove filling in for the big foam targets. The Leafs PK (which might have benefited had it been coached by Peter Puck) ended up 27th in the NHL in 2006-07.

Top 8 in PK minutes last season:
1. Gill
2. McCabe
3. Kilger
4. Kaberle
5. Kubina
6. Steen
7. Stajan
8. Peca

Top 8 in PK minutes this season:
1. Gill
2. Kubina
3. McCabe
4. Kilger
5. Wozniewski
6. Devereaux
7. Stajan
8. Antropov

For those of you keeping score, you might be noticing a pattern here. In fact, 20 of the 23 players on the Leafs 2006-07 roster returned for the 2007-08 season, as did the entire coaching staff.

So where was this change going to come?

Toskala, Bell and Blake?

Really?

A career back-up, a third-line centre (who's been suspended for almost a fifth of the season) and a small forward (who's just been diagnosed with a form of cancer).

If that's the answer to what ails this club (and here's the question: how do you fix a team with a woeful inability to keep the puck out of their own net, discipline problems and a PK that puts "special ed" back into special teams?) Paul Maurice is going to need to get a plantation worth of chamomile tea for Leafs Nation.