Good Days...For Now

Oh Happy Days

These are heady days for me as a sports fan. If you've read my handy little description on the right hand side, you'll notice that I'm an Ottawa Senators, Toronto Raptors and Toronto Blue Jays fan. Something of a weird combination, I know. I can't help it that I was born in Ottawa and have a soft spot for professional baseball and basketball. All three of the teams I support are enjoying a remarkable run. The Senators have reeled off eight wins in a row, the Raptors have won four straight and the Jays have yet to lose in 2010 (That's right folks, things are going to be so bad for the Blue Jays this year that I am distinctly worried they might find a way to lose games before the season even starts. Thankfully, they are exceeding my expectations).

Being a fan of the Senators and Raptors is actually a remarkably similar experience this year. Both are fifth seeds in the Eastern Conference. Both went through tough patches that had people, myself included, wondering if they would even make the playoffs. And now both seem to be headed in the right direction. The Raptors just knocked off the defending champion Lakers, the Sens just knocked off the defending champion Penguins. So this all sounds very nice. What's the catch in that ominous title?

Well, I don't think either of these teams can win the championship. To my mind, the Raptors have the better chance of the two, but both teams are seriously flawed. The Senators have some top end talent in Jason Spezza, Daniel Alfredsson and Alexei-hey I'm suddenly motivated-Kovalev, but they lack depth and their goaltending is unproven. I think their ceiling is probably the fourth or fifth seed in the East and possibly a victory in a playoff round or two.

Meanwhile, the Raptors have a sublime offense, but still can't really play defense to save their lives. It's been a lot better during their hot play of late, but I still don't know how they can beat the Bostons and Clevelands of the world in a best of seven series. If they were to make it past the second round, it would be considered a major success. This whole year just feels kinda "eh". But it could be worse; I could be an Edmonton Oilers, New Jersey Nets, Washington Nationals fan. If this person exists, they should really just stop watching sports for a couple of years. Things can only get better. Right?


Doppelganger

I have found Phil Kessel's doppelganger: Alexandre Daigle. Now, obviously, you should take this with a grain of salt. Well, maybe more like a whole spoonful. I do think Kessel is a better player than Daigle, but you have to admit that through their first four seasons, they have eerily similar numbers:

Kessel: 264 GP, 81 Goals, 76 Assists, 157 PTS
Daigle: 263 GP, 67 Goals, 89 Assists, 156 PTS

And you're telling me that production is worth two 1st round picks, one 2nd round pick and then over 5 million a year? Look, if I was a Leafs fan, and I'm not, but living in Toronto I get NOTHING but Leafs coverage, I would be up in arms over this. The Leafs haven't been this bad in a long, long time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Brian Burke, you've really messed this one up. Big time.

NB

Clean Check

Today, Nick Kypreos said some rather interesting things about the mindset of hockey players during a lunchtime radio show. The most relevant quote:

“I’m not proud to say it, but I felt like if I could kill somebody with a legal check, I would do it,” Kypreos said, reflecting on his career during a discussion on vicious bodychecking — whether clean or illegal — on The Fan 590.

“That’s how much emotion, and outside the norm (of society that a hockey player) can get ... there is no rhyme or reason.

“I have been out there and looked at another guy’s eyes and I thought ‘I could kill you.’ ”

Now. I should start by saying I have never played a game of professional hockey. If you want to discount my opinion for that reason, you are free to go ahead and do so. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if a sporting event is eliciting that sort of reaction, something is wrong. I am all for heated competition, but there should NEVER be a point where death is even contemplated.

Read Kypreos' comments again. He certainly seems to be implying that had he been given the chance to kill another player with what he defines as a "clean check", he would have done it. That is highly disturbing for a number of reasons:

1) Kypreos chose the term kill carefully, and used it deliberately. There was no hyperbole in the way he spoke. He did not use the word kill to exaggerate "hit very hard". He definitely meant "to take the the life of another human being".

2) While Nick Kypreos explained that he was not proud of having felt that way, he did attempt to justify his thoughts. In reading the rest of the article, it becomes clear that Kypreos would say he is merely a victim of his surroundings. There is "...stuff that will make you snap.." and that body checking can involve "...drawing some emotions you're not proud of". Kypreos is suggesting that placed in the same situation, everyone else would have done the same. It's just the way the game is played etc.

3) Maybe the scariest underlying part of all is the implication that it would be possible to kill someone with a "clean check", one for which, as a player, you not only could legally perform, but should feel obliged to do so. The furor surrounding the recent rash of injuries in hockey that have been caused by hits to the head has revealed a mentality in the upper echelons of the game wherein the only question of whether a player was in the right was whether he lead with his shoulder or his elbow, or did the hit take place when the injured party still had the puck?

Why is it okay to shrug off debilitating injuries in the name of...what exactly? What is so great about seeing players lying prone on the ice? But if it's a "clean check", it's okay?

"...the key to trying to deliver a punishing hit or exact a measure of revenge is to do it legally. That’s where Cormier failed miserably".

That's what Toronto Sun's Gary Loewen wrote in that same Kypreos column. And he is so very, very wrong. Patrice Cormier failed miserably as a human being not because he led with his elbow in hitting Mikael Tam, but because he left the bench with the intention of hurting Mikael Tam. The elbow is scary, but the beeline Cormier takes is even scarier.

Which takes me back to Kypreos' original statements. I think it says a lot about the state of the game that Kypreos says something like that and almost no one bats an eyelash. Google the term "Nick Kypreos kill". Almost no results relating to his insane comments. You know why? Because he said he would do it with a "clean check". One day, something horrible is going to happen because of what the rules would define as permissible. Maybe then we can finally talk about the consequences of "clean checks" like rational human beings.

NB

The Wood was Brought

Before this weekend's playoff game against the Arizona Cardinals, New Orleans' coach had the great idea of giving of all his players baseball bats and encouraging them to "bring the wood" on Sunday. Apparently one player took the message to heart:

"At a team meeting Friday night, Saints head coach Sean Payton passed out baseball bats to all his players, inscribed with the saying: "Bring the wood." Bush was so enamored with the lumber that he took it to the Superdome on Saturday and even carried it with him onto the field. At kickoff, Payton had to tell him to put it down."

Well, Reggie Bush was outstanding and the Saints absolutely demolished the Cardinals. But why "bring the wood"? Why baseball bats? Thinking of renaming the team New Orleans Mafioso? I'm really not sure I understand Sean Payton's message. And why was Reggie Bush so taken by the bat? But above all else, why did a horribly cheesy gimmick apparently galvanize a professional athlete?

So many more questions than answers.

NB

Pierre McGuire

If you watch hockey in Canada, you can't help but be exposed to Pierre McGuire. Pierre is something of a polarizing figure. I don't particularly enjoy his brand of commentary, but apparently lots of people in Canada think highly of him. He certainly gets excited about the game, and I won't fault him for that. It's a lot more enjoyable viewing when it seems like the commentators genuinely want to be working the game. He also seems to do his homework before games because he often cites weird little anecdotes about the players. Again, not my cup of tea, I don't really care which Bantam team Matt Stajan played for, but it shows he's invested in his job. So he has his strengths , and even though they aren't necessarily what I look for in a good commentator, I will acknowledge he isn't all bad.

He is a lot bad, though.

During tonight's Leafs-Flyers game, broadcast on TSN, Pierre said something about Mike Richards that bordered on the insane. I'll paraphrase:

"Mike Richards is a real leader! As he skated by the Flyers bench he said: 'Come on guys, let's pick this up!' There may have been questions about Richards earlier this season, but there's no question now. Mike Richards is a leader!" (Those of you unfamiliar with Pierre McGuire may initially think I used too many exclamation marks in describing his tone. You are very wrong my friends. I considered using more. Many, many more.)

McGuire had spent a good chunk of the first period heaping praise on Richards for wholly unremarkable play, but this one line was so over the top that I just started cackling like a maniac. What does it mean that Pierre thinks this is a good example of leadership? One so good, in fact, that he felt the need to highlight it to a national audience. Does he get blown away every time someone in his life accomplishes a menial task? "You just made it down the block without tripping over your own shoelaces? That's an unbelievable level of balance! There used to be questions about your ability to walk upright, but not anymore! You can definitely put one foot in front of another! Outstanding!"(At the same time, I think Pierre would make an excellent life coach and motivator. Having someone pump you up every time you did your laundry would be pretty awesome).

This is typical of McGuire's commenting style. I often get the feeling that he comes into a game with a storyline in mind. "Player X is good at Y, so look for examples of this to reinforce pre-game comments". The issue is that this often devolves into Pierre trying to ram a square peg into a circular hole. Maybe Mike Richards is a good leader, but that instance Pierre screamed about for 30 seconds certainly did not prove it. If anything, it makes me question Richards' leadership, considering how inane of a situation was just provided as a supposedly outstanding example. That's a good reason to think he's a good leader, Pierre? Really?

The other problem this creates is that it becomes impossible for Pierre to ratchet it up a notch if there ever is a big play that warrants top of your lungs screaming. The reason you want to keep things low-key 95% of the time is so that when something incredible happens that 5% of the time, you have a different level to go to. Pierre doesn't have another level. And if he does have one that he has been saving all this time, God help us all. If he's somehow involved in the commentary for the gold medal game, and Mike Richards scores the game-winning goal in overtime, after telling the team "Come on! We can do this!", it might be just enough to get Pierre to that extra level. I think we'll have to call in a SWAT team to take him down.

I think in limited doses, Pierre could be effective. As far as the pre-game show goes, I actually think he does a pretty decent job. But when he's forced to carry the colour commentary, he tends to over-compensate, and at least two or three times a game he'll say something crazy. I'm writing this because I don't know who's providing the colour commentary for the Olympics. And I'm scared.

NB

Heartbreak City

For my Canadian readers, Tuesday night was probably a roller coaster of emotions. I'm speaking, of course, about the gold medal game of the World Junior Hockey Championships. In one of the most entertaining hockey games I have seen in a long time, the United States triumphed over Canada 6-5 in overtime. The action was back and forth, played with almost reckless abandon. As Canada, or more correctly Jordan Eberle, completed a furious comeback from two goals down to tie the game at 5 with time winding down in the third period, the rink in Saskatoon was about ready to explode. The game went into overtime, and ended the way it had been played: with the U.S on an odd-man rush. Everyone I was watching the game with went silent. Less than a minute earlier, you couldn't hear yourself think. Heartbreak City indeed. (Link is to Gus Johnson's classic call of the end game from UCLA-Gonzaga in the NCAA tournament a couple years back. Wait for it. Trust me.) But why are we so drawn to the event?

There's something uniquely Canadian about our obsession with the World Junior Championships. No other country cares about the tournament in even remotely the same way. The attendance figures support this, the incredible amount of media coverage dedicated to the event support this, the completely insane viewership numbers support this, and especially the way that bar, that is normally so dead, was hopping the other night support this. Our obsession with safeguarding the game as our own plays a big part. I can't think of another major sport with a worldwide following where the dominant country is so consumed by the notion of owning the game. No one European or Latin American country claims to own soccer in the way we claim to own hockey. Even the Americans aren't nearly as protective of baseball. So when our national pride is on the line, it only makes sense that emotions would run high.

We also love the unpredictable nature of the games. Though the players chosen are the elite of their age category, they are still just kids. They make mistakes. A lot of them. One of the reasons the gold medal game was so thrilling was exactly because the players were amateurs. Even with a two goal lead and less than 5 minutes remaining in the third period, the Americans suddenly found themselves running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Where was the dominant performance of the first 30 minutes? I hate to speculate on intangibles like pressure and momentum, but it sure looked like having 15,000 fans screaming and pounding the boards had something to do with Canada getting back into it. This turn of events would never have taken place in the NHL. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, sheer excitement can make up for a sloppily played game.

Still, the tournament has its problems. For the Canadian team, they only played two competitive games throughout. In particular, there was one game where they obliterated the poor Latvians 16-0. And that scoreline isn't the only one of its kind. Look at some of the scores from the rest of the tournament. Lopsided doesn't even begin to describe it. Obviously Canada, and probably the Russians despite their weak showing this year, will routinely beat up on at least a couple of teams every tournament. It would be a mistake to reduce the number of participating teams to 4 or 6, but the complete lack of competition until the semi-final round is certainly a negative.

The fact that the tournament is basically a Canadian event is also somewhat of a negative. It barely even registers as a sporting event outside of the True North, Strong and Free. When the tournament is held in European locations, the empty seats speak volumes to that fact. So, sure, we get really excited about it, but almost no one else does. That's something of a problem for a tournament called the World Junior Hockey Championships, and not the Canadian World Junior Invite (through it sure feels that way sometimes).

As Canadians, we will overlook all the warts. The problems that plague the tournament are merely endearing qualities to us. Canada won 16-0? Good for the boys, who cares about competitive balance? We will build up all of our heroes to a staggering degree; Jordan Eberle will never have to pay for a meal in Canadian restaurant for the rest of his life. And when we win, we'll throw parties like no other country would. But when we lose, it'll hurt worse than it would for everyone else too. Heartbreak City indeed.

Choices

Selecting Team Canada is an onerous task and I don't envy Steve Yzerman and his assistants. If their team fails to deliver a gold medal on home soil, the backlash from not only the hockey community, but Canadians as a people, will be tremendous. If one of the players has a poor game, his selection to the team will be questioned. If Canada fails to medal, the Prime Minister will have to come out of hiding to declare a state of emergency. There is a lot at stake for them, let's leave it at that.

I think that, for the most part, Stevie Y. has done a good job. The three goalies were clear choices, so I won't even go over them here. The top 9 forwards were also fairly obvious, and he seems to have chosen correctly:

Nash - Crosby - Iginla
Heatley - Thornton - Marleau
Staal - Getzlaf - Perry

Those would be my combinations, though I think you could put the names into a randomizer and still come out with three dominating forward lines. The theoretical fourth line, to me, would be:

Morrow - Richards - Toews

Those seem like good choices to me. Mike Richards is debatable, and maybe the other Richards deserved it more, but I like Toews and Morrow quite a bit. It's certainly a whole lot better than the Kris Draper selection, or my personal favourite, the immortal Rob Zamuner. I bet you'd forgotten about that one. In 1998, Rob Zamuner played for the Canadian Olympic team. Let's pause to consider that one, friends.



[Pause]



Okay, pause over. Also, in that famous shootout against the Czech Republic, the Canadian shooters were Theoren Fleury, Raymond Bourque, Joe Nieuwendyk, Eric Lindros and Brendan Shanahan. While Wayne Gretzky sat on the bench, those five were charged with scoring on Dominik Hasek at the pinnacle of his powers. RAYMOND BOURQUE! Sorry, that just kind of slipped out. BOURQUE! As you can imagine, it's still a touchy issue.

Back to the subject at hand. I think the only questionable forward selection is Patrice Bergeron, and since he's probably the thirteenth forward, that shouldn't be a big deal. The person that should be up in arms over this is Marc Savard. How do you look at those numbers and choose Bergeron? Or the best part, how do Team Canada executives go to scout Bruins games, and then miss Savard? How does that happen? Did he somehow offend Yzerman personally? I am flabbergasted.

The choices on defense are a little stranger:

Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer, Drew Doughty, Brent Seabrook, Duncan Keith, Shea Weber and Dan Boyle.

I think that Duncan Keith, Dan Boyle, Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger are locks. I am not a big Pronger fan, but he's played well so far this year. He's +11 on a Philadelphia team that's only scored three more goals than it's given up. Weber is certainly a defensible choice, but the Seabrook and Doughty choices are a little weird. The conventional choice would have been Jay Bouwmeester. He's soaking up almost 27 minutes per game, mostly against the opponent's top line, and he's a solid + 9.

However, I think the real missed opportunity was Mike Green. Okay, I know he is not super defensively. Well, maybe I know he's mediocre.... okay, okay, he's not good, alright? Everyone knows that. He's also a point a game player with an outrageous level of skill. No one makes a better breakout pass in the NHL. No defenseman carries the puck better than him. And no one, no one, runs a power play better than him. How does Brent Seabrook and his magical .37 Career Points/Game average get the nod over Mike Green? Yes, Rick Nash dangled him that one time. Yes, he had a bad run in the playoffs last year. But if Canada's power play goes bad, Green will be sorely missed.

On the whole, I do respect the fact that they didn't go for old veterans that had more experience than some of the youngsters that were chosen. Any of the forwards is markedly better than say Ryan Smyth or Shane Doan. And resisting the temptation to create a true checking line is a stroke of genius in my mind. Even the hypothetical fourth line will be able to generate offensive chances. So, on the whole, kudos Steve Yzerman. You did a very credible job. Now, if this teams mucks it up, none of it will matter, you'll still get kicked out of Canada.

NB

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

I am taking a brief Christmas hiatus. I'll be back early in the New Year. Safe and happy holidays to all!

NB

The Impossible Search for Clutch

A lot of this piece comes from a discussion I had with a friend of mine. We'll call him D-aunt-a. There, that should sufficiently hide his identity. Lord knows that if you are featured on my wildly popular website that you'll be fighting off the paparazzi within an hour of the posting. My unidentified friend is of the opinion that there is such a thing as a "clutch" skill. I do not share this opinion. In fact, I am of the opposite opinion. I'll put it bluntly:

There is no such thing as a "clutch" player. There is such a thing as a "clutch play", an instance during the game wherein a sometimes difficult play is executed that is crucial to determining the outcome of the contest. But the ability to make clutch plays as a skill? Does not exist.

The players that are typically identified as clutch are already the best players in the game by any metric. What I am about to produce is, obviously, a somewhat flawed metric, but I think it conveys the general idea.

Link 1: An all-time ranking of NHL players in terms of points per game in the regular season
Link 2: An all-time ranking of NHL players in terms of points per game in the playoffs

N.B: I have set minimum requirements of 300 games played in the regular season and 40 in the playoffs, so as to have somewhat significant data points. The main flaw in this system is that Alex Ovechkin has not yet played 40 playoff games and Evgeni Malkin has not yet played 300 regular season games. Otherwise, both would be in the top 10 in both categories.

You will notice a lot of similarities about this list. You can throw a few individual cases at me if you want, Joe Thornton and Johan Franzen(though Franzen, at 51 points in 63 games isn't even THAT good, yet I digress) are the classic examples, but on the whole, one has to admit that the best playoff performers are the same guys that are the best regular season performers.

Which brings us to the following question: Why is the "clutch ability" a commonly-held belief? Why do we glorify some, and mock others? Why do we long to make tangible something that is clearly not?

It's the impossible quest to explain randomness. The playoffs, in any sport, are such a tiny sample size that they are inherently random. Anything can happen, anyone can win. Literally. But we need a story, we need heroes and villains. Successes and failures. John Elway was considered one of the greatest choke artists of all time until his Broncos won those last two Super Bowls. Is he now clutch? Can we retroactively remove his choker title? How about Alex Rodriguez?

To me, it ultimately boils down to this: the best predicator of a player's success in the playoffs is his body of work in the regular season. There's no voodoo. If you are a good player in the large sample of the regular season, you are more likely to succeed in the playoffs than a player who experiences less success during the regular season. There are exceptions, and weird things do happen. But the "clutch skill?" Might as well believe in UFO's.

NB

Tiger Woods Connects All The Dots

I haven't written anything about the Tiger Woods scandal so far, and up until I read this piece, I was not intending to. The whole story is such a soap opera, and frankly, I don't care that much. Not to say I condone cheating on your wife, but so many people have already written about it, some better than others, that I don't feel like I need to get up on my high horse and reprimand Tiger. But an article about bookies taking bets on the size of Woods' divorce settlement? Now that was just too much for me. The article in question, and the rest of the media frenzy surrounding it, should tell us a number of things about ol' Tiger.

1) Tiger Woods is the most popular, and important, athlete in the world.

Lots, and I mean lots, of athletes are unfaithful. When their infidelities are made public, some get more coverage than others. Kobe Bryant's whole sordid affair in Colorado was very big news, but not nearly the monstrosity that this story has become. It's literally impossible to visit any news website and not have a Tiger-related story somewhere on the front page. Admittedly, the shock of the whole situation had something to do with it, I don't think there were too many people that saw this coming, but the fact that it happened to TIGER WOODS is the biggest story.


2) Tiger Woods is a unifying force.

One of the reasons that the article made me laugh is because of the section wherein they explain gambling odds. Here's the excerpt:

At odds of 25-1, people who bet $1 and win will get $25 plus the $1 stake back. At 6-4 odds, a $4 bet will get $10 in return.

It is innocuous and, if you are familiar with gambling odds, it seems like a throwaway. You probably just glossed over it. Now, what it actually tells you is that TSN thinks that it needs to explain how gambling odds work to its target audience for the article. They don't think gamblers are going to be particularly interested in the article. No, this is for a much broader audience. If Auntie Lynn who is a golf fan, but who watches only the majors, and only when Tiger's in the hunt, is going to read one column this year on TSN.ca, it'll probably be about Tiger. So, we need to explain this sort of thing to Auntie Lynn. If you have a relative like this, you can think of this as a family bonding opportunity. Tiger Woods: bringing people together through his shame.


3) Bookies will take bets on ANYTHING.

I mean look at some of those possible bets. Note that his wife hasn't even filed for divorce yet. Also, people like betting on pretty well anything. I think it's fascinating. I could debate the odds on the divorce settlement for at least 20 minutes with someone, not necessarily because I think the divorce itself is interesting, but because making up the odds would be highly entertaining. I don't think I'm alone in that.


4) There's been a certain gleeful "We got you! You tried to shut us out forever and we got you!" attitude to the media's coverage.

For years, Tiger Woods did his darndest to keep everyone out. And I mean everyone. His yacht is named Privacy. Privacy! So when he finally slipped up, it was a feeding frenzy.

Now I've never been chased by the paparazzi. I've never had mics shoved in my face from weird angles. I've never been expected to be a role model to millions of people. Maybe Tiger Woods' approach makes the most sense. But, I have to believe that you can't pretend not to be human forever. You can't act like you don't have real emotions or that you're not a real person. Because eventually, you are going to be exposed as being a real human being. And when that happens, it's gonna hurt worse than anything you were hiding from in the first place. I can't say it like Jay Smooth does, so I'll close this piece by throwing it over to him. Give it a watch, and let's get some more comments going!


NB

Telling Stories

Today, reports have surfaced that Roy Halladay has been traded to the Philadelphia Phillies. The rumours have not yet been confirmed, but that seems like a mere formality. In the world of sports reporting, where there's smoke, there's almost always fire. It's awfully hard to keep something of this magnitude under wraps forever.

I was well aware that this moment was coming, I even wrote about it earlier this summer. Roy Halladay and the Blue Jays were going in vastly different directions (Roy was good and the Jays were awful). My plan was to write a snarky, sarcastic piece about the folly of trading arguably the best pitcher in baseball. I might still write that piece. But, I also have to write this one.

I wouldn't consider myself a die-hard Blue Jays fan; I watch a lot of the games, but I've only been to a handful in my life. I've only ever seen Halladay pitch twice in my life. And yet, I feel like I know him. He was undyingly loyal to the Jays. He always, always, performed like a pro. Even as the franchise that employed him was self-combusting all around him, he went out and did his job. At the end of every spectacular outing, as the crowd rose to their feet to applaud the pitching genius, he would tip his hat in a way that seemed so sincere. It didn't hurt that he was one of the very best pitchers of his generation.

For the most part, I am a rational man. I would consider myself more objective than most when it comes to sports analysis. I don't "hate" my favourite teams' rivals. I don't lose sleep based on the outcome of a game. I follow attentively, but somewhat dispassionately. Or so I thought.

When I first read that Roy Halladay had been traded, I didn't have the reaction that I expected. I couldn't even muster a word of sarcasm. I couldn't write something funny here, it wouldn't be sincere. I don't know him, I never will know him, but it still feels like someone in my life is leaving. I'm left to marvel at the attachment I formed with a man that I watched go out and simply do his job once every five days for seven months out of the year. How did I ever get this attached to him? Was his loyalty contrived? Did he go about his work so professionally because he believed in honouring his contract, or because he truly did love the game and the fans?

In watching the sporting spectacle unfold, as fans, we can only ever guess at the motives of the players before us. As the Tiger Woods fiasco demonstrates, an image can be manufactured. As long as we're held at arm's length, we can never truly know the person in question. We are left to guess at who they really are.

Why do I think I know Halladay well enough to be saddened by his trade? I think it has something to do with telling stories. All of our lives are filled with stories. Some stories are private, and some we share with others. As you become more comfortable with someone, you share more of your stories with them. And, in turn, you hear more of their stories. Every five days, for seven months a year, Doc Halladay told stories for us to share in. It always felt like he wanted the fans to share in his stories. It never hurt that he was the best story teller around. And he was our story-teller. Being a fan of a baseball team not named New York, Boston, L.A or Philadelphia is a challenging proposition. Eventually, the talent is going to leave your team for greener pasture. They will be too expensive to keep around, and will probably be traded before they are lost for nothing in free agency. Halladay stuck with the Blue Jays through thick and thin. When J.P Riccardi made his plan to trade Halladay public, Roy remained professional throughout. A lot of people would have taken shots at management for the p.r nightmare that ol' J.P created, but not Roy. Maybe he has very good advisers, or agents, or lawyers, that help him keep his agent so clean, but I don't think so. I am just guessing, but it would take a lot to change my mind about Halladay. That's the story I created for him. Now that he's gone, I'll have to write a new one, about some new hero. I doubt it'll be as good because I won't have as good a co-author.

The Best of the NHL Decade in Review: Part 1

Sports Illustrated started a feature this week whereby they collected the best and the worst of the past decade for every sport. Well, I thought it was going to be every sport at least. They started off with football and baseball, which makes sense, they are the two most popular, and then went straight to pop culture....which isn't even a sport. So they skipped over basketball and hockey, which means that I get to completely rip-off the idea for the NHL. That's how copyright works right?

I'll clarify that I mean the decade as being from the 1999-2000 season through the 2008-2009 season. This, unfortunately for them, disqualifies players like Mario Lemieux and Peter Forsberg that were clearly some of the best players of their generation. Mario only played 170 games and Forsberg only played 440. Sorry guys, no one is disputing your place in the hockey pantheon, but in this discussion, you have to take a back seat. And so, without further delay, I give you my Best of the NHL Decade in Review:



Player of the Decade:Nicklas Lidstrom.
Runners-up: Martin Brodeur, Jaromir Jagr

This proved to be a most difficult choice indeed. For me, it really came down to three players: Jaromir Jagr, Martin Brodeur and Nicklas Lidstrom. Jagr is unquestionably the best forward of the decade, racking up 864 points in 692 games. Even more impressive is to consider how much damage he did before the lockout, when you were basically allowed to cut an opponent's arms off without being penalized. His 1999-00 and 2000-01 seasons are just outrageous. Some called him a floater later in his career, but you just cannot argue with the numbers. Jaromir Jagr flat out dominated.

Brodeur's case will always be hampered by the fact that some of those Devils teams he played on were impenetrable black holes on defense. Like it or not, hockey is a team game and Brodeur benefited from having very good teammates. Does this diminish everything he's accomplished? Not at all. He still had to play very well to achieve what he did, I just think you could have probably swapped him with Luongo or Roy, or maybe even an Ed Belfour-type goalie and gotten almost identical results. So, sorry Marty, but this is my list and your all-time wins record just don't cut it here.

Nicklas Lidstrom wins my fantastic fictional prize because he was unquestionably the best defenseman of the decade. Consistently excellent, he only had one down year in 2003-2004 when he mysteriously only scored 38 points, but was otherwise beyond comparison. He quarterbacked the powerplay AND the penalty kill on some of the best teams of the decade. He won the Norris 6 (!!!!) times and the Conn Smythe once. He's also generally regarded as one of the classiest players in the game. It was close, but it's got to be Lidstrom.



Best Franchise of the Decade: Detroit Red Wings
Runner-up: New Jersey Devils

This, again, was a very hard choice, though only between two real contenders. Both the New Jersey Devils and the Detroit Red Wings can make very strong cases for having been the franchises of the decade. Now, I think it's no coincidence that the two finalists were, and still are, lead by two of the finalists for the prestigious No Heart Ball Player of the Decade Award.

Really, there's no other franchise that can match the consistently excellent teams that these two put on the ice for all of those years. Both won two Stanley Cups and lost once in the finals. Both had highly publicized flame outs in the first round of the playoffs. But, to me, one of the true marks of their continued excellence is their outstanding regular season records: both teams made the playoffs every year in the decade. In fact, neither missed the playoffs during the span.

In the end, I decided to go with the Wings because they had more truly outstanding seasons. While New Jersey averaged an impressive 103 points per season during their run, the Red Wings rang up 113. Let's go over that number slowly. Over the entire 2000's, the Detroit Red Wings averaged 113 points a season. They averaged 50 wins, 19 losses and 13 ties. That, my friends, hurts my head to think about.



Best Canadian Franchise of the Decade: Ottawa Senators
Runners-up: Everyone else is remarkably similar

This being a (mostly) Canadian sports site, with a (mostly) Canadian audience, I figured this should be addressed. Now, as a Sens fan, I suspect I will catch some grief over this. Believe me, I wouldn't make this argument if it wasn't completely air-tight. Obviously everyone, and twice from those pesky Leafs fans, would point to Ottawa's "disappointing" playoffs record. Well, friends, Ottawa actually has the best playoff record of the lot. Shocking, I know. Let's break it down:

Ottawa: 8 playoff appearances, 7 series won, 8 series lost, 1 Finals appearance, 1 Conference Finals appearance
Calgary Flames: 5 playoff appearances, 3 series won, 5 series lost, 1 Finals appearance
Edmonton Oilers: 5 playoff appearances, 3 series won, 5 series lost, 1 Finals appearance (Weird coincidence!)
Toronto Maple Leafs: 5 playoff appearances, 5 series won, 5 series lost, 1 Conferences Finals appearance
Montreal Canadiens: 5 playoff appearances, 3 series won, 5 series lost
Vancouver Canucks: 6 playoff appearances, 3 series won, 6 series lost

The regular season number speak for themselves, so I won't even bother with those. If those Sens are playoff chokers, then we have a goddamn epidemic of choking amongst our Canadian hockey teams.

The second part of this piece, featuring my selections for the All-Decade team, will be posted sometime in the next couple of days. I am choosing four forward lines, three defense pairings and two goalies. Post your teams in the comments section and we'll do a comparison when mine goes up.


NB

New Post!

TONIGHT!!!!!





Woo.

The Code...

...Is the Worst Part About Hockey

There's a lot about hockey that I love, but a lot of those good things are often overshadowed by the actions of a stupid few. Hockey is a sport that requires a great deal of toughness to play at any level of competitiveness. Racing back to retrieve a dump-in at full speed, all while the opposition's forechecker breathes down your neck, just waiting to crush you into the boards, is not for the faint of heart. The physicality often crosses the line into violence. Every season, there are innumerable incidents in which "dirty" play causes injury, precisely because it's so hard to tread that line without crossing it. Your clean, open ice, hit to the chest was probably just a step, and a couple of inches, away from being an elbow to the head that causes a major injury. Accidental injury is a part of the game. It's possible to commit an infraction without ever intending to. Not every high stick that cuts a player's face open was deliberate, and those types of plays are unavoidable. The real issue stems from what most people would term "cheap shots".

To hear some people tell it, the best way to steer the game away from the cheap shots is to allow the players to police themselves. In this world, all players would abide by The Code. The Code, for those of you that aren't familiar with the term, is a completely ambiguous definition for how to "play the game the right way". I hate The Code. I defy anyone to clearly articulate to me what, exactly, The Code entails, and who, exactly, abides by it. Most of the time, it's about how a fight between two aggrieved parties will prevent any further escalation. Let boys be boys. Except that it doesn't work. And nobody abides by it.

Last night, Dan Carcillo sucker punched Matt Bradley after cross-checking him twice. It was a completely gutless act. Most sensible human beings watch that clip and see Matt Bradley is essentially the victim of assault. After hitting Carcillo, cleanly, both Bradley and Carcillo fall to the ice. Carcillo gets up first and cross-checks Bradley in the back. As Bradley gets up to skate away, Carcillo cross-checks him again. Bradley turns to face him, Carcillo grabs Bradley by the jersey with one hand and sucker punches him with the other. The whole thing happens in about 10 seconds flat. Bradley has zero chance to defend himself. He's starting to take his gloves off to fight, but Carcillo has already cold-cocked him by the time he gets one glove off. For his transgressions, Carcillo received 19 minutes in penalty. The Capitals scored 3 goals on the ensuing power play and won the game going away. Today, the NHL suspended Carcillo for 4 games. And yet, there are people that are defending him.

If you are a masochist, you can try to read through the comments on the video link. There are a surprisingly large number of people that defend Carcillo's actions. Any hockey related website that allows comments will feature a fair share of the same sort of message. The claim goes that Bradley should have been ready to fight, that Carcillo was just defending himself. Carcillo is tough, and Bradley, as YouTube commenter GNR27J puts it "Bradley you are a pussy and had it coming to you". Nice. Somehow, the victim is the problem because he didn't adequately defend himself.

Why is Bradley at fault? Because of The Code. He supposedly should have been ready to defend himself as soon as Carcillo dropped the gloves. Nevermind that Carcillo doesn't actually drop them, he throws them, and that there was no way that Bradley had any way of predicting that Carcillo would lose his marbles that quickly. I could never say it as well as Cedric Daniels does, so I'll let him say it for me.

The problem runs deeper. This whole thing started because Bradley hit Carcillo along the boards. Watch the whole replay: Bradley delivers a clean, hard check and Carcillo loses his mind. He cross-checks him, when Bradley tries to skate away, cross-checks him again, and, finally, just grabs him and sucker punches him. That's how you're supposed to react to a clean hit? This makes Carcillo tough? That is the opposite of tough. If Carcillo was really tough, he'd have shaken it off as part of the game. He took the hit to make the play. That's what someone with real guts would have done.

The players that commit the worst, dirtiest infractions are the same players that are supposedly enforcing the code. What do Marty McSorley and Chris Simon have in common? They're players whose sole role is to fight. If you asked the people that love The Code, those players should be keeping the cheap shots out of the game. And yet, for some strange reason, it's those very players that commit some of the worst acts.

I love hockey, and I'll probably never stop loving it, but things like this make me wonder why we cater so much to the vocal minority. Just because they scream the loudest doesn't mean they're right.

New and Exciting Posts...

...Coming Tonight!

Sorry all for the lack of updates this week, it's been kinda hectic in my part of the world. I will be back with more writing tonight.

Matt Burt, we hardly knew ye...

...Yet Your Opinions About Brian Burke Are Highly Predictable.

I'm not vain enough to think that this article was meant as a rebuttal to my earlier piece about Brian Burke, Ron Wilson and their mis-handling of the Toronto Maple Leafs. I do think it's a very weird article. It's like a bizzaro version of what I wrote, where the author has been sipping on a little too much of the MLSE Kool-Aid. There are some particularly jarring parts that I'm going to break down FJM style because it's too surreal for me to ignore.

After a few introductory paragraphs, Burt unearths Brian Burke's classic quote:

"We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence," Burke famously said. "That's how our teams play."

When you read this, it's like Burke grabbed a thesaurus before the interview and looked to see how many variations of grit or toughness he could come up with. I wonder what would happen if the team only had the proper amounts of testosterone and truculence but not belligerence. Would only 4 out of the 5 players on the ice finish their checks? Would Thomas Kaberle suddenly become scared to pass the puck as Burke has suggested in the past? Mysteries abound when you play hockey chemistry!

With a full year in the Big Smoke under his belt, Burke has received his share of criticism for producing a team that's tough as nails, but not all that effective at putting the puck in the net.

No, Matt, you see the problem is that Burke hasn't received enough criticism for his failures so far. The Toronto media is inundated with stories like this one; fawning over his successes and glossing over his failures. And what does it mean to be tough as nails? Is this even true of Toronto? Other teams are so scared of the Leafs that they're only outscoring them by 25 (!) goals this year. Imagine if they were only kind of tough.

"My first thought was that there was too much emphasis on the toughness angle," says NHL on TSN analyst Ray Ferraro. "I have always felt that skill is harder to accumulate than size and grit. That would have been my priority, in particular since they do not have very much top-end skill."

While some onlookers argue the team is underachieving, others say they're actually achieving just fine, thank you.

"The Leafs' biggest problem is that they simply are not good enough," explained Ferraro. "I've played on bad teams - sometimes their best isn't enough. This is a time for teaching and repetition of structure - pointing out flaws all the time doesn't make a player better - (head coach Ron Wilson) has to help the current players be as good as they can be until they acquire a better group."

I never imagined that Ray Ferraro would be the voice of reason in all this, but thank you, thank you, thank you. Why isn't this obvious to everyone else whose job it is to notice these things? Thank you Ray, you are a hero in my books. You know Matt, maybe this is going to work out okay after all. Maybe you've come to your senses and this column is going somewhere and I...

Depth issues and other problems aside, there is a different angle to be considered, and that's the one that casts Burke's vision in a positive light, one that gives him the benefit of the doubt on a long-term timeline. After all, he didn't exactly inherit a fantastic hockey team, and one season does not a legacy make.

Oh no. Matt, no. Why did you go and do that? We all knew he inherited a bad team. But since he's inherited them, THEY'VE GOTTEN WORSE. And...

"It's far too early," says McGuire. "First of all, this is a major rebuild. The Maple Leafs just had no organizational depth at all. Burke has tried to be proactive rather than reactive. He's tried to drive the market and and I think he's done some very good things."

Now imagine this scenario: five years from now, hockey fans in Toronto are marveling at the completion of Burke's long-term vision as the team hoists the Cup for the first time since 1967.

Okay, now we've actually entered the realm of the fantastic. I can practically see your Leafs jersey there Matt.

In the Internet age, it's easy for any blogger to throw out vicious barbs (from the office, the classroom or even their parent's basements!) and have it count for something, but the reality is that judgements made this early in Burke's reign are simply unfair.

Why did you have to go and make this personal Matt? I'll have you know I moved out of my parents' basement 4 years ago now and that I very rarely ask them for money! At least Ray Ferraro is still on my side, right?

"I would have hired Brian if it was my team, and I still would," he [Ferraro] said of the first American-born GM in Maple Leafs history. "It isn't unfair to evaluate, but it's way too early to make any judgement."

Hurrm. I'm not exactly sure what Ray Ferraro means by that, but okay! I'll keep on evaluating without passing judgement!

There's a whole lot more of this stuff that I'll sludge through later. But really, it's just the same stuff from the Toronto media. I've been cynical enough for one evening.

NB

Canada is Still the World's Premiere Hockey Nation...

...But We Aren't Producing the Most Skilled Players

Since this will probably prove to be something of a touchy subject, I'll start by making a couple of stipulations:

1. Canada is still the strongest hockey country in the world.

2. Team Canada will enter Vancouver as the odds-on favourite to win the tournament.

3. My argument is not that Canadians are not the best all-around players, but rather that they are not the most individually skilled.

3. Canadians love hockey

4. I love hockey

5. I love Canada

Those last two points are especially important. Suggesting that Canadian hockey players are anything less than perfection is heresy and I might be putting myself at risk for some sort of group violence for criticizing the way Canadian players are taught to play the game (well, not really... i mean probably...hopefully.... err...on second thought I just won't leave the house for a couple of days).

I'll be blunt: The most individually skilled players in the game are not Canadian. For a country that produces a remarkably large percentage of the players in the NHL, dominates international competition, and in general is completely hockey-crazed, this is somewhat surprising. When I think of flashes of genius, of awe inspiring displays of skill, I think of Alex Ovechkin, I think of Evgeni Malkin, I think of Ilya Kovalchuk, I think of Marian Gaborik. I do think there are lots of really, really good Canadian players. Sidney Crosby, Jarome Iginla, Rick Nash all are outstanding talents. But, I don't think those guys have the same puck skills the first group does. Now, this is obviously highly subjective. You could put together a really superb Crosby-Iginla-Nash highlight reel and I would be forced to bow to their mastery of the game of hockey. I mean, Rick Nash did score this goal (By the way, I love the commentary in the clip. The colour guy says "My goodness gracious! Holey Moley!"). Nonetheless, they are not the most individually skilled players in the game.

I think there's a good reason for this. From a young age, canadian players are taught to take the safe play. "Ring it around the boards" or "Dump and chase to get the forecheck going" are two of the mantras of pretty well any hockey coach in Canada. Players are rewarded for what I would term boring play. How often will a coach congratulate a player for beating a defender one on one to create a great scoring chance? Instead, if there is a turnover, the player is likely to be reprimanded and benched. By putting team success ahead of the development of individual skills, hockey in Canada is producing a very specific type of player. How are young Canadian players ever going to develop the puck skills, let alone the confidence, to dangle a defender when they are constantly told not to take the risky play?

Watch Malkin, Kovalchuk or Ovechkin play. They attack every defender at full speed. When they get the puck, they want to score and if that involves beating the opposing team's players one on one, so be it. The fact that they do so with such frequency is no fluke. From a young age, they must have been allowed to develop puck skills and offensive skills. They were allowed to attack, attack, attack, and sometimes, they made mistakes. The type of skill set they posses doesn't just materialize.

I think the best example of this conservative attitude in Canadian hockey is reflected in the current debate over the lineup for Team Canada in Vancouver. To me, the most shocking aspect of the whole thing is how Mike Green and Marc Savard aren't either locks, or at least fairly sure things to make the team. Instead we talk about players like Shane Doan (?!) and Robyn Regehr (?!?!?!?) as vying for the last couple of spots. Now, both are perfectly good NHL players and play critical roles in their respective teams' success. But Green and Savard are exceptional talents. Watch how their offensive skills open up scoring opportunities for their teammates. Green has 25 points in 24 games, which is tied for the league lead for points by a defenseman. He scored 31 goals last year. And for all you people that love plus/minus, he's a tidy plus 5 on the year so far. Watch him make a breakout pass. Be awed by his skating ability. How is this guy not a lock for Team Canada? The answer is in our country's obsession with playing it safe and ringing it off the boards. Make the unspectacular play, force the other teams to make mistakes and hope to capitalize. Savard is viewed in generally the same light. How is someone like Jordan Staal a better fit? Does no one think to see that Savard is one of the very best distributors in the NHL?

It's not impossible for the super elite, individually skilled players to emerge from the Canadian hockey system. It's just that we make it ridiculously hard to do so. Until we change our attitudes about "dumping and chasing" and "playing it safe", it's not likely to be any different for the years to come. Canada will continue to be the powerhouse in hockey, with depth that is envied by all. Yet, we will lack that singular offensive talent, that player that when he gets the puck, as he winds up behind his net before charging up ice, forces everyone to rise from their seats with bated breath. We'll continue to win or lose as a cohesive unit with no one outstanding player showing off breath-taking skills. We'll win gritty. How wonderfully Canadian.

NB

Drafted Could Have Been Really Interesting...

...But Instead The Score Tried to Make a Quick Buck and it's Terrible

I should start by stating that I had intended to apply to be on the show. The premise sounded fascinating: The Score television network would scour the country looking for Canada's next sportscaster. One of the main reasons that I watch TSN instead of Rogers Sportsnet or The Score is the appeal of their on-air talent. I find Jay Onrait and Dan O'Toole pretty hilarious. I think that Darren Dutchyshen is practically a Canadian institution. Ask any of your friends that follows sports in this country and they'll have an opinion about the TV personalities on the three major networks. Hosting Sportscentre would be a dream come true for a lot of fans. Thousands of people would wait anxiously to showcase their talents. Think of it as American Idol, or So You Think You Can Dance, except for sports geeks doing their best play by play, and...wait, why did I think this would be a great idea again?

But, as it turns out, the problem wasn't with the premise of the program, but rather the execution. I should have known that there would be issues when The Score promoted the idea as "Gillette Drafted" instead of just plain "Drafted". In an era in which broadcasting anything, anything at all, to a national audience involves mass commercialization, the Gillette part of the name simply slipped my attention. I'm far too numb to this sort of thing to pick up on the subtleties of corporate sponsorships. What I didn't imagine was the lengths that The Score, and Gillette by proxy, would go to in order to promote the sponsor's product.

Every segment of the show was as much about promoting Gillette as it was about choosing the winner of the competition. I first became worried when during the initial interview phase, the candidates were asked about personal grooming and Gillette, etc. It got progressively worse, until the breaking point came when the candidates were set to interview Bas Rutten. Bas is a bad-ass dude, and the idea of just dropping the finalists in there to do an intervew with him without any preparation at all sounded very interesting. Unfortunately, before the interview itself, we were subjected to watching the finalists "prepare" for the interview by using Gillete products. Watch the first couple of minutes of Episode 40: Andy's Bad Hair Day. We have to watch him shave? Really? By the time the interview itself rolled around, I was so turned off by the shaving scene that I had lost all interest in the competition. The Score had effectively killed their own punchline with a terrible lead-up.

It got worse. Scroll up to the Journey and Transformation Episodes and watch how the makeup artist shamelessly shills the Gillette products at the end of the episode. I'm not naive about this sort of things. As I said at the start, broadcasting to a large audience requires sponsorship. But this was a whole new level. How does The Score expect to have ANY credibility with their viewers after this disaster? The home of the hardcore? You can honestly say that to me with a straight face?

If my criticism seems overly harsh, know that I would never write something this biting if the product was just crappy. It's not that it's bad, because then I would have just ignored it like so many other terrible programs. It's that The Score wasted a really great opportunity by chasing a few extra dollars. The poor soul that had the great idea in the first place must cry a little every time his dream is sold for a few more dollars every episode. How hard would it have been to call it Gillette Drafted and just thank the sponsors once or twice a show? Or run only Gillette ads during commercial breaks?

The great irony of all my rage is that I just bought a bottle of Gillette shampoo yesterday. In the deep recesses of Gillette's marketing department, someone is laughing maniacally.


NB

BREAKING NEWS!

...Actually no, not really at all.

However, the timing of this press release does seems highly suspicious to me. I think everyone was well aware of the fact that Roy Halladay wasn't re-signing with the Toronto Blue Jays after his contract expires next summer. Is this meant as one last olive branch to the fans? A way of saying: "Hey, we're about to trade our best player for pennies on the dollar, but look! We tried to re-sign him, we really did! It's just that our 'timelines for winning don't mesh'", perhaps?

This whole thing makes Paul Beeston seem so naive, when he's clearly not. Anyone with any remote interest in the Jays is aware Halladay is going to be traded. Beeston knows this is public knowledge. Just a guess, but I'd wager we're going to see the Halladay derby heat up in the next week or so.

Stay tuned.

Brian Burke and Ron Wilson are Bulletproof

...Or Maybe They Have a Thick Coat of Teflon?


These two must have incriminating pictures of every member of the Toronto media. The normally fickle hockey press corps, with the loudest voices emanating primarily from the panelists on TSN and Rogers Sportsnet, is somehow giving Brian Burke and Ron Wilson a relatively free pass for the absolute quagmire that is the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team. Let's recap quickly for those that haven't been following:


1. Ron Wilson joins the Maple Leafs prior to the 2008-2009 season. Wilson is largely regarded as a major upgrade from his predecessor, Paul Maurice (I don't necessarily agree with this assertion, but this is the popularly held belief).


2. After a lot of posturing by both sides, the Maple Leafs and Brian Burke unite in holy matrimony on November 29th, 2008. Every single member of the media approves of the move. Talk of Brian Burke's history as a "winner" is bandied about freely. Glory days are sure to follow


3. Burke, on multiple occasions, goes on the record as saying no one on the Leafs current roster is safe, except maybe Luke Schenn. He promises the team will be harder to play against. He over-uses the word truculent to the point that all meaning is lost.


4. The Leafs finish a surprisingly respectable 34-35-13 for 81 points. At the outset of the 2008-2009 season, it was generally agreed that the Leafs would be one of the worst teams in the NHL. Ron Wilson is touted in some corners as a candidate for Coach of the Year.


5. In the weeks leading up to the NHL Draft, Burke makes it abundantly clear that he wants to move up to take Tavares. His refusal to include Luke Schenn in any trade eventually forces the Leafs to select from their original position, 7th. They select Nazim Kadry.


6. Burke makes a couple of free agent signings outside of the NHL. Christian Hanson, Tyler Bozak and Jonas Gustavsson join the team. Gustavsson is the only one of the three to make the team out of training camp.


7. Burke signs two well known NHL defensemen: Mike Komisarek and François Beauchemin. Both are regarded as being upgrades for the team's swiss cheese defense.


8. The most hotly debated of Burke's moves: the Phil Kessel trade. Burke trades the Leafs' first and second round picks in the 2010 draft, as well as the Leafs' first round pick in the 2011 draft to acquire the sniper. Kessel signs a 5 year, 27 million dollar contract.


That's a quick-hit synopsis of the Leafs under Burke and Wilson. Mix it all together and you have the Toronto Maple Leafs at 3-11-6 and in a state of complete disarray. Recently, Dave Feschuk of the Toronto Star wrote a column in which he interviewed sports prognosticator Ken Roberts. Mr. Roberts developed a complex simulation system that he uses to forecast the NHL season. In Mr. Roberts' simulations, the Leafs made the playoffs 1.7% of the time. Let's think about that number: 1.7%. Barely a quarter of the season has been played, and the Leafs are basically statistically eliminated.



John Ferguson Junior Part II?

Not to bring up the ghosts of Leafs GMs past, but if John Ferguson had a start to the season this bad, he would have been drawn and quartered by now. What exactly have Burke and Wilson done to give themselves so much credibility?

Wilson's supposed strength, bringing defensive accountability to his team, has turned out to be the team's biggest weakness. In 2008-2009, the Leafs gave up 293 goals, which ranked dead last in the NHL. This year, they have given up 77 goals, which currently ranks second last (Only Carolina has given up more, 80, and Toronto's got a whole game in hand to make up that difference). If they continue at their stunningly inept pace, the Leafs would give up a whopping 316 goals. That's amazingly terrible.

Wilson promised that players would be held accountable. Maybe the players are being held accountable for their play, but it doesn't seem to be doing them much good. I hate to speculate on locker room dynamics, and from what I've seen the Leafs do seem to play hard, but they are so far from cohesive it's scary.

Burke's record of player acquisition reads even worse. His three non-NHL signings are at best works in progress. Gustavsson has a 3.23 GAA and a save percentage of .901. It's early, but there's not a whole lot to go on there. Bozak and Hanson are still in the AHL. Maybe these three will work out, maybe, but things aren't exactly looking rosy on that front.

The NHL signings were absolute disasters. I don't know why anyone ever thought that signing Mike Komisarek to a 5 year contract at 4.5 (!!) million per year was a good idea. Komisarek has 12 goals, 46 assits for 58 points IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. 377 games of offensive futility. For a supposedly defensively sound player, he sure seems to be out of position a lot too. I guess he's just trying to be truculent in his observing of defensive zone responsibility. The Beauchemin signing is definitely more defensible, but again, his defensive zone play hasn't exactly been inspiring.

And finally, the Kessel fiasco. The only reason this is even a conversation is because Kessel is playing out of his mind right now. And he hasn't even been THAT good. Kessel has 5 goals and 8 points in 8 games. Certainly a good thing, and he's looked sharp. But let's say he keeps that up (I doubt it, he's never been a point a game player), the Leafs gave up three of their four best chances to get better in the next two years for one point a game player. I wouldn't say he's even one of the 20 or 30 best players in the league.

Burke now has three assets that he could possibly trade: Kessel, Kaberle and Schenn. Anyone else on that team is absolutely toxic and no way another GM is touching them with a ten foot clown pole. What could he reasonably expect in return for Kaberle, the only one that he would probably trade? A top 6 forward and a second round pick? A first and third round pick? The Leafs would have taken 2 steps forward and 3 backwards. This is the amazing part about it, not only have Burke and Wilson made the Leafs worse in the short term, they are almost certainly worse off in the long term too. Where are they going?

Which brings me back to my original point. Why is Burke made of Teflon? What's his plan going forward? There is no argument to be made that he's rebuilding, and there's definitely not a claim to be made that the Leafs are better in the short term. And Wilson's team is the most disorganized and inefficient in the league; not exactly signs of quality coaching. I am not saying they need to be fired, it's a small sample size and they have a track record of reasonable success in the past. But please, please, someone hold these guys accountable. The media practically drove JFJ out with pitchforks and torches for much less than this disaster.

I wonder what the pictures depict.

NB

Thoughts on the Leafs...

...are coming tomorrow. Should be interesting.


NB