February 2008 Archives
Oh Helen...call off your dogs
The race to turn the sports pages into gossip rags intensified this week with three of Toronto's most prominent columnists flinging innuendo, rumour, and hearsay around like shit in a monkey fight.
First up: Rosie DiManno, who claimed in her column this past Sunday that Mats Sundin had told one of his closest friends that "[i]t's not my job to fix John Ferguson's mistakes." Between this, and Simmons' accusations about Mats from last week, I'm surprised the Leafs captain didn't waive his no trade clause just to get away from his "friends". Mats called JFJ later that day to deny these comments. Rosie responded by writing that "[w]hat Sundin may or may not be saying privately to friends is a fart in a mitten." I have no fucking idea what that means, but it doesn't sound like Rosie was a) defending her source as valid, or b) apologizing.
Not to be outdone, Simmons slipped this cryptic little morsel of info into his Sunday Brainsqueeze: "Biggest mistake Ferguson made that nobody talks about: Hiring an attractive female team masseuse for the all-male Maple Leafs." No explanation. Figure it out for yourselves people. Let your imaginations run wild.
Of course, the bottom of the barrel can't be scraped until Damien Cox gets his hands in there. So, as a farewell present to Chad Kilger, we get this unsubstantiated little tidbit: "A veteran player, Chad Kilger, departed amidst murky rumours involving his personal life." Details? Anything to back that up? Nope? Just throw it out there and see what happens. Maybe we can combine it with Simmons' rumour? The possibilities are endless.
"Dishonest Arguments and Confused Invective" Dept
Speaking of Cox, it turns out Bob Gainey made the move of the deadline by getting less for a capable NHL starting goalie than the Leafs did for Hal Gill. According to Cox, trading Huet to a conference rival and potential playoff opponent is an act of both bravery and genius, and the Leafs should be envious of the Habs for having a man with the intestinal fortitude throw caution to the wind and make a pointless trade. Of course, the Leafs had a guy like this running the team for five years. A guy who could make stupid deals like this in his sleep. A guy who never once had a glowing tribute like this appear in the pages of the Toronto Star:
So on an eventful day when there were 25 trades, including major acquisitions by Dallas, San Jose and Pittsburgh, the image of Gainey's determined jaw setting the course of Les Habitants was so starkly in contrast with the dysfunctional Leafs that it could not be missed.
Gainey's determined jaw setting the course? Pravda didn't write shit like this about Stalin.
And the winner is...
Now that the trade deadline has come and gone, we can announce the winner of our Blue and White Bargain Bin contest. Or, more accurately winners, as Godd Till and Jacques Strap both correctly identified three players that would be lucky enough to no longer be on the Leafs roster by 3pm on Tuesday, February 25. You both win the right to claim that your hockey prognostication abilities are greater than Eklund and Darren Dreger combined, and Mr. Strap gets to write a guest column for the Cox Bloc if he feels like giving us some free content. Congrats.
On Mats - I've already made my feelings pretty clear, but to elaborate, I think a lot of people were looking for a Sundin trade as a magic bullet. A quick fix to get us back to the point where we can at least dream of a Cup again. That wasn't the case. It's very possible the offers weren't that good. No matter what was out there, it's worth remembering that a couple prospects and picks are no guarantee, welcome as they would undoubtedly be. Righting the Leafs will take a whole lot of time. There's one crucial decision that will dictate whether it will be a success or not, and it ain't whether #13 will take yet another one for the team. Who gets brought in to run the show from here, that's what matters. So yeah, we're where we were a month ago. Except apparently we own the Senators again.
Mr Jorn disagrees vehemently with me on this, but I don't think the Leafs need to go the Ottawa/Pittsburgh route, though Stamkos or Tavares would aid a rebuild immeasurably. There are prospects in the system. There are still pieces that can be moved, and time beyond tomorrow to move them. And there still is money. There is always money. Get the right guy with a good plan, and in three years or so, this team will be back. Until then Leafs fans need to take Axl's advice.
Of course, I just based my optimistic argument on MLSE a)hiring the right guy and b) getting the hell out of the way. I'm so sorry. Ignore me.
In the meantime, enjoy Mats giving his all, leading with class, heart, and skill. However it ends, it ends on his terms, and that's as it should be. What most of the media and many fans have never understood is that guys like him don't come around very often. They get one more chance to figure out what the rest of us already know.
As it looks highly possible that none of the NTC 5 will be moved by Tuesday, we can look forward to several articles attempting to goad Leafs fans into booing one of Toronto's greatest players and leader, so they can have something to point to when using their "Leafs fans are brain-dead and fickle" template for future columns. You know, the one they alternate with "Leafs fans are easily satisfied sheep."
It makes one want to take a vacation, so thankfully today we're kicking off our Cox Bloc Canadian Tour (opening act: Slik Toxik). We're teaming up with writers in every NHL city, and Ottawa, to take the mittenstringing pulse of the nation. Up first is Canada's wrestling capital, as Metrognome at the always-excellent Five Hole Fanatics hips us to Bruce Dowbiggin's trolling and the warm, urbane charm that oozes from every Darryl Sutter interview. As the greatest interviewer of our time would say: Respect.
MG: As far as I can tell, the media is relatively friendly in Calgary. Both with the Flames organization and with each other. Some writers are free-lance and their stories may appear in both major newspapers (Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun). Some of them occasionally sit in on the local sports radio channel as well (Fan960). Like any business, I'm sure some rivalry exists, but nothing overtly antagonistic or spiteful. At least in view of your average consumer schmo like me.
Like any market, the criticism tends to run the gambit between fawning to vehement denunciation. Perhaps more the former than the latter here in Calgary though. As such, the mean, median and mode of talk in the media tends to land on "mildly supportive". It's fairly rare that individual players will be excessively "picked on", for example. A lot of the stars and more fan-favored players will typically "get a pass", even if they're struggling. A piece may bring up the fact that, say, Jarome Iginla hasn't scored a lot recently (for instance), but it's unlikely it'll be nasty about it. For another example, the Flames struggled relative to expectations last year. Afterwards, there seemed to be as many columnists supporting Jim Playfair as there were ones calling for his head if I remember correctly.
What is the relationship between players and press? Front office and
press?
The players and media are pretty friendly. That seems to stem from guys like Jarome Iginla and Craig Conroy who are almost always willing to do interviews and are invariably smiling when doing them. It probably also comes from the lack of smear-pieces that are produced in town: both parties seemed motivated to keep the relationship "on good terms". The last time I can remember a player snapping at the media in scrum was Alex Tanguay when he was recently asked if he'd like to "remain in Calgary" ("That's a stupid question" was his obvious response).
The front office and the press is another matter. While Ken King tends to appear approachable and magnanimous during his interviews and public appearances, management tends to be very tight-lipped and guarded around the media in general. In addition, Daryl Sutter often has the air of man who is forced to suffer fools during each and every press conference. He clearly doesn't enjoy that aspect of his work and also clearly holds a number of the members of the Calgary media in contempt (most obviously: Jermaine Franklin from TSN and Eric Francis of the Sun). Occasionally, Sutter will offer up an interesting, in-depth interview to the radio station or a lucky scribe, but, more often than not, he has the tone of an annoyed scholar lecturing school children when dealing with the press.
Any long-running feuds, scapegoatings, smear campaigns, or fawning?
I honestly can't think of any, partially because the Flames as they exist now weren't the Flames of the mid-to-late 90's. The guard has changed completely (and more than once), so there's precious little time to build up any sustained animosity or love-affairs. There are couple of writers that will tend to leap upon any chance they get to criticize the direction of the team in general or Sutter's decisions in particular (Bruce Dowbiggin of the Herald and the aforementioned Eric Francis spring to mind), although their "scare pieces" often have the feel of populist head-line grabbing (ie, a ploy to sell more papers) than an actual out-and-out feud.
Who is the best sportswriter in your town, and why?
There are a lot of them and I have gravitated away from the media over the last few years, so this is a tough one for me. The first name that springs to mind is, of course, Eric Duhastchek who I think is a stellar sportswriter. Unfortunately, while he's a Calgarian, he doesn't tend to cover the Flames on "day-to-day" basis: he concentrates on more "global concerns" in the NHL.
A couple of Herald writers, Scott Cruickshank and Jean Lefebvre, tend to be pretty balanced and responsible when they report on the team. They've almost made the leap into "new media" by offering a daily blog, which is worth a few points in my books. Their "Inside the Flames" is one of the few MSM blogs I reference daily and have as link on my own humble site.
There's a veritable host of other guys that tend to be "good". George Johnson, Randy Sportak to name a couple. Bruce Dowbiggin swings from interesting to aggravating, sometimes in a single piece, so I would put him in the middle/bottom of the pile.
Who is the worst?
I'm going to have to go with Eric Francis. He's the guy that will immediately declare a state of emergency if the team loses 4 games at the start of the year. He's the biggest "Chicken Little" in the Calgary media, and usually his opinion pieces on the team will be rife with shallow reasoning and over-the-top predictions of doom and gloom. The thing about Francis is he actually isn't that bad if he's doing some factual reporting.
Is Steve Simmons syndicated in your area? How do you feel
about that?
I don't think so and I'm glad. Although, I don't habitually read the MSM anymore, so that could very well be false.
How knowledgeable are the fans? Any irrational loves, hates, bees in
bonnets?
Fans are hard to gauge, because the loudest and most outspoken tend to be the most irrational. Take after-game talk radio for instance. Losses can often result in loud and drunken demands to trade Iginla and "shake the team up".
If I were pressed, though, I'd say the fans are pretty damn educated about the team and the sport relative to a lot of markets. Calgary is big enough to have a large base of supporters without being so big that the fanship is swelled by lots and lots of fickle mush-heads.
As for "amore": fans in town love Iginla. They love Kiprusoff and, by and large, they love Daryl Sutter (Dion Phaneuf is working his way into that holy trio). The first 3 were the figureheads that pulled the franchise out of it's nearly decade long slump as NHL bottom-feeder and punch-line. As such, they have a lot of currency with the folks in town. It's fairly difficult to harshly criticize any of those listed in public or on a messageboard without being flamed, leapt upon or drawn and quartered. I would predict that another year or two of mediocrity will begin to drain Sutter's "goodwill" account with the fans and owners alike, however.
As for hates or bee beset bonnets, I can't think of any that are consistent or chronic. Like every team, Calgary has it's guys that get picked on sometimes for one reason or another (Amonte, Friesen and Andrei Zyuzin drew the "goat" straws last year), particularly after losses or bonehead errors. But nothing I would call persistent or overly irrational.
What do you want to see more or less of in your local sports
pages/media?
I guess I read less of the media these days because:
The analysis is often, as genius Peter Griffin would say, "shallow and pedantic". As I understand it, though, that is a necessary limitation of the medium: it has to remain relevant and broadly accessible. Im sure a large faction of casual fans only care enough to look up the scores and the "general" health of the team without having to learn about advanced stats or coaching strategies. That tends to be pretty unfulfilling for an obsessive and experienced hockey nut like myself, however.
Thanks to their relationship with the players and team - a relationship they no doubt wish to nurture so it'll continue in perpetuity - the sportswriters sometimes aren't critical enough of the players, coaches, etc. (in my opinion anyways). In addition, they tend to parcel out the facts almost apprehensively, if they seek them out at all. Bland puff pieces like "Rhett Warrener is a healthy scratch tonight...let's see how he feels about that", with accompanying player quotes saying all the right things fill a lot of column space an awful lot of the time. Rarely is there a will to challenge a bland, cliché quote from a player/coach or investigate a particular situation very deeply. For example, Tony Amonte was suddenly scratched in the middle of the season last year by Jim Playfair. There were rumblings afterwards that Tony was angered and insulted (even though his play had been subpar) and that Playfair actually apologized to Tony afterwards. This version of events was cobbled together by drive-by quotes, water-cooler whisperings and the like. No official version was ever properly pursued or reported to my knowledge. The primary advantage the press has over amateur pundits like myself is access to the source and factual reporting. I just wish they'd do a lot more of it and yield a lot more interesting stories than the same old run of the mill, zip-a-dee-doo-da fluff pieces. If there's a conflict in the dressing room, I'd like to know what it is and why it's happening. I'm not saying I want a lot of gossip, but I do want to know if there are significant conflicts behind the scenes that may be skewing the clubs performance.
How fucked are the
Leafs?
From my seat out here in the west? About as fucked as Lindsay Lohan at a coke and gin party I'd say. Keep in mind, though, things could be worse: you could be cheering for the Edmonton Oilers.
I was shocked that this filth even saw magnetic ink. I mean, this isn't the Toronto Sun here. This is the Worldwide Leader, whose masthead is roamed by such giants of journalism as Bill Simmons, Stephen A Smith and John Kruk. How could this happen? I contacted my source in Bristol. With a little eavesdropping, he was able to relay me just how "DC South"'s effort was received by the muckety-mucks:
ESPN EXEC: Scott, thanks for coming in. Listen, absolutely loved that piece on Sundin. Really shows some fresh thinking. You know, we're always ripping on guys for chasing the money or the easy title shot, turning their back on loyal fans. So we get a guy who refuses to go that road, wants to stay and be a leader - and you rip him! Brilliant.
SCOTT: Well, thanks. I just wanted to stress that I value the pursuit of excellence more than anything else.
EXEC: Exactly, that's what I wanted to talk with you about. We've got some big changes in mind for our hockey department, and you're a leader around here, so I wanted to run them by you. Ever since we stopped broadcasting the NHL, we've fallen into a bit of a rut. We need to reload, so I've lined up some of the best columnists and bloggers out there, and we've got tentative deals to bring them on board.
SCOTT: Wow, that's fantastic!
EXEC: Great, right? Unfortunately, we're right against the budget, so to bring some top guys in, I need you to do what's right for the team.
SCOTT: Sure, what's that?
EXEC: Well, remember that contract we signed you too? If you'd agree to adjust your pay downwards, about two-thirds, we'd be able to turn this team around. Also, you have to share a desk with Barry Melrose.
SCOTT: But I just signed that contract! I earned it! And you agreed to it with me! And Melrose? He spends all day prank calling Pat Burns, and his hair smells like a raccoon addicted to mouthwash! I've covered hockey here for years, and I built this department. I deserve some respect.
EXEC: Well, Scott, I'm a little disappointed. I thought you'd be prepared to do whatever it takes to help us be the best. You love your hockey history Scott. Remember Ted Lindsay?
SCOTT: Sure! 379 goals, a legendary competitor...
EXEC: Yeah, that's all well and good, but my favourite story is about the time he tried to organize a player's union, based on some crazy idea that the rights of the players being just as important as the owners making money and pursuing titles. Good old Jack Adams ripped the C off his sweater, and then he traded him to the worst team in the league, all while badmouthing him in the press. Wasn't that something?
SCOTT: Ummm...
EXEC: Anyways, Scott, even if you don't want to be a leader, you're still a big part of our team. Here's what we've got lined up for you over the next little while: liveblogging Eklund's trade deadline coverage.... we're doing a special site for Canada now, so you need to go through all articles and change the spelling of 'centre' and 'defence'... and then it's ECHL playoffs, so you'll need to start checking out hotels in Idaho! What a business.
SCOTT: I can't believe you're doing this to me.
EXEC: Come on, now Scott, no hard feelings. In fact, to show our appreciation, I've commissioned a profile on you, to celebrate all the great things you've done here.
SCOTT: Really?
EXEC: Sure. I hired that guy up in Toronto you email back and forth with to handle it. That Cox fella.
*Burnside falls to his knees, weeping* Alright, I'll do it! I'll take the cut, share the desk, anything you want! Just make the bad man go away!!!!
EXEC: Excellent.
Many whistleblowers, such as the one the Bushies condemned for exposing the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, might not have come forward if they weren't guaranteed protection of their identity. Watergate is probably the most famous case of reporters using anonymous sources to uncover corruption, giving credibility to unnamed tipsters, and bestowing upon the world an illogical suffix which we can attach to the end of any word to create a scandal.
In recent years, the excellent reporting on the BALCO Scandal by the San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Fainura-Wada and Lance Williams - dependent on anonymous tips and leaked testimony - ignited the desire to rid baseball of steroids, eventually leading to Roger Clemens making himself look like an even bigger asshole than we ever though possible in front of Congress this week.
On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources allowed the RCMP to smear Maher Arar's name, and helped the Bush Administration reveal the identity of a CIA officer in an attempt to crush any dissent towards their impending invasion of Iraq. By being too reliant on unnamed sources, the reporters in these and similar instances allowed themselves to become mouthpieces for misinformation. In the case of former Washington Post reporter Janet Cook, the acceptance of anonymous sources allowed her to simply make shit up (winning her a Pulitzer Prize for her efforts) until, ironically, several unnamed sources ratted her out.
To combat these abuses, some newspapers will not allow attribution to unnamed sources. Others set very high standards for when it is allowable. The Canadian Association of Journalists provides guidelines for reporters using anonymous sources, such as:
We should strive to fully identify the sources in our stories for credibility and accountability. When sources are secret, the reader or audience has less information on which to judge the reliability of the source's comments. Also, anonymity might encourage the source to make irresponsible statements.
However, confidential sources can be a vital tool in the free flow of information. There can be clear and pressing reasons to protect anonymity. In print media, we may conceal the identity of interview subjects by changing their names or by not naming the source. In broadcast, we may protect identities through digital or other technical methods, such as concealing an interviewees face or distorting their voice.
We should use such methods only when the participation of the subject puts them at risk of harm or personal hardship (i.e., a whistleblower who might lose his/her job, or a mole within organized crime.)
...More than one source should be used to verify a story or fact. If only one source is available, we must say so.
We will not allow anonymous sources to take cheap shots at individuals or organizations. We will independently corroborate facts, if we get them from a source we do not name.
The Canadian Press Style Book, the style and content bible for most newspapers in Canada, suggests the following when it comes to unnamed sources:
Regular use of unnamed sources weakens our news reports. CP should be firm in discouraging the quoting of sources who want to hide their identities.
The Canadian Press also offers the following guidelines:
Reporters writing stories containing unnamed sources must be able to demonstrate:
a). The information is of genuine public interest;
b). The information can be verified by at least one other source, even if unnamed;
c). The source is known to them
d). There is no real possibility that the source is using CP for selfish purposes;
e). Normal standards of fairness and balance are followed.
Think about the stories you have read in the sports pages this week and compare them to these standards. Did George Gross's column from Wednesday, quoting an unanmed NHL GM saying he wouldn't trade a seventh rounder for Darcy Tucker, need to have an anonymous source? (Actually, that is a trick question, since, if it weren't for the anonymous source, there wouldn't have been a story at all. Still, this is journalism? Unsubstantiated back-room gossip is headline worthy?) Was anyone's life in danger? Was there any possibility that the GM in question was using Gross for his own selfish purposes? Like, maybe to drive down Darcy's trade value, as the Meatriarchy pointed out?
How about Steve Simmons' hatchet-job on the character and competitiveness of Mats Sundin in Friday's Sun? It was hardly Watergate. Did Simmons not learn his lesson during Hip-gate? Apparently unnamed sources aren't a last-resort when reporting on a story of significance, but a cheap way to fill inches on a slow news day? (By the way, I call shenanigans on that entire column. These two people that Simmons interviewed are not Mats Sundin's friends. How do I know this, having never met them? Easy: friends don't talk shit about you behind your back to Steve Simmons. These people may know Mats, but they are not his friends.)
I could go on and on and on and on, since unnamed sources are a staple of the sports pages. I understand that trade rumours are often dependent on anonymity, and I don't think people like Marty York and Bob McKenzie should have to name their sources when they relay a rumour. Luckily, their work can be judged on the accuracy of their reports, and we can decide whether or not to believe what they write. A columnist is only as good as his sources, and if those sources are good, the stories will be as well. That is why Peter Gammons is widely respected (or at least was) and Eklund can't show his face on TV.
But, when Darren Dreger goes beyond trade rumours and starts telling people that "his sources are saying" the Leafs are purposefully tanking this season, that is when we call bullshit. You should not be able to go on television and say anything you like without any proof besides ethereal sources (besides, that is what blogs are for.) When a columnist attacks someone's reputation or when a television talking-head maligns an entire organization, shouldn't there be certain standards in place to ensure that what we are reading or hearing is accurate, fair, and not fabricated? Oh yeah, those standards do exist, but for some reason, the people that employ the Dregers and Grosses of this world don't seem to enforce them.
Check out this column by Kamloops This Week reporter Cassidy Olivier in which she wrestles with the implications of granting a source anonymity and tell me if you honestly believe that these kind of thoughts passed, for even one second, through the brains of Dreger, Gross or Simmons. It is too bad that Kamloops This Week doesn't have more Leafs coverage.
On a side-note, I will give Simmons and Gross some credit for at least naming the players they have chosen to write shit about. Check out this little gem from Damien Cox's Sunday column:
Naturally, you'll now see the fellows who did squat when the Leafs actually were in contention for a playoff berth start producing. No surprise there.
Pssst...Darcy Tucker...he's talking about you...
Happy birthday Kim!
(and Mats)
First, Marty York asks the question on no one's lips - why doesn't Shawn Green have a job, like, in Toronto? Now Shawn can still hit righties a bit, and seems like a nice guy, but considering the Jays have two lefty-hitting left fielders already, plus Johnson, Rios, and Wells, it doesn't seem to hard to answer. Especially when Marty sends these types of ill-equipped soldiers to to be blown up at the front:
Unfathomable is the fact that, with MLB training camps opening soon, clubs have shunned one of the most productive outfielders in recent decades...
Only two active players, Ken Griffey Jr. and Gary Sheffield, have accomplished what Green has by producing at least 300 homers, 1,000 runs and RBIs, 400 doubles and 150 stolen bases.
Beyond being untrue (there's the Bonds guy you mentioned in your article, for one), Griffey and Sheffield were both significantly more productive than Green last season. Unfathomable? Shunned? We're not talking about the Red Sox passing on Willie Mays here, Marty. At this rate of hyperbole you're gonna blow out your thesaurus by Opening Day. Pace yourself, it's a long season.
Richard Griffin is also inhaling the heady fumes of yesteryear, possibly from a paint can, and has identified the biggest victim of the Roger Clemens saga: Tim Johnson! Apparently inspired by a new Rambo movie out, Grimace has reignited his one-man commando mission to polish TJ's rep, this time at the Rocket's expense. Full diclosure: I think Griffin is right about Johnson. I also rank Clemens in the top-5 people I hate in baseball, right up there with LaRussa, Jeff Weaver, and David Eckstein.
But again, Griffin uses dishonest and useless arguments in this hack-job on Clemens. Devoting a good chunk of the article to an irrelevant debate over whether Johnson or Clemen's lies provoked more tears from the Baby Jesus, Griffin peppers his Dregerrific argument with nuggets of innuendo like this:
After the escape-from-T.O. fact, after Clemens had used his illegal side-agreement with the Jays to force his way to the Bronx, there were carefully leaked rumours that one of the reasons he wanted out was because of Johnson's lies about fighting in Vietnam.
Hell, at least Dreger attributes his nonsense to shadowy 'people talking.' Griffin employs the total passive voice here to fully cover his ass. Rumours leaked by who? To who? This is about as convincing as the Rocket's steroid denials.
Then there's this sideswipe at the end:
In '98, when Clemens was named starter of the All-Star Game in Denver, he quietly asked Jays relievers if he could take their uniform jerseys to the game and keep them in his locker to show his appreciation. Nice gesture, but, then he hung Dan Plesac, Paul Quantrill and some others at the front of his locker facing out so that the media would see them and ask him about the gesture. Who looked good?
Umm, Plesac and Quantrill, among others? Seriously, we have 20 years of public evidence that Roger Clemens is a jackhole. Is this the best you can do?
Whatever happens, guilty or innocent, Clemens probably gets what he deserves for hiring a lawyer named Rusty. It's like trusting a mortician named Skip.
WTF? Seriously, can anyone explain this to me?
And hey, whatever happened to Bryan McCabe? Oh right, he signed that massive contract and now everyone hates him. The Chicago Tribune reminds us that getting Bryan was actually a damn good trade. From their list of laziest recent Chicago athletes, it's none other than Alexander Karpotsev!
The Russian defenseman's best talent was coming up with ways to avoid playing during his three-plus seasons with the Blackhawks. These usually involved pulled or bruised muscles right at the beginning of a West Coast road trip. "Potsy" would join the team on the trip and get his rehab in a nice, warm climate. After being acquired in October 2000 from the
Little known fact: Karpotsev is still in hockey, as a personal trainer. Among his clients are Kyle Wellwood, Jeff O'Neill, and Jason Allison. However, Allison recently quit, chafing at Karpo's "Power Thursdays" regimen, which included watching the Rockford Files and a brisk nap, followed by seven innings of beer league softball.
Saving the best for last, inspiration to the unemployable Brylcreem Jr is back drawing a paycheck! The irrepressible hair treatment connoisseur and amateur hockey executive will be part of TSN's trade deadline team.
This will lead to a David Brent level of fist-biting awkwardness, as Fletch frantically tries to dismantle the team JFJ built while he sits there and comments. Look for some exchanges like this:
McKENZIE: So the deal is official, Pavel Kubina to Detroit for a 7th rounder. We're also hearing that Fletcher has traded Andrew Raycroft to a Whitby-area Canadian Tire, in exchange for one of those goalie things you tie to the crossbar in practice.
DREGER: Well, not much return, but the Leafs simply had to get out from under those contracts. I like Canadian Tire taking on the dollars. If Raycroft can regain his confidence, they could make some noise in the Friday Midnight League 'B' Division playoffs.
*everyone looks at Ferguson*
BRYLCREEM: Well, Cliff is being aggressive to make space for some.... some... *looks at Milbury* at least I never traded Luongo and Spezza!!!!
*runs out of studio sobbing*
McKENZIE: Ehh, it still worked out better than "Win, Lose, or Tie."
Seriously, why the hell would JFJ take this on so soon? Between this and his brave face during his five month firing, I'm beginning to think he is some kind of a masochist. The word out there has reached me through rumours that have been leaked that some of JFJ's other possible projects include:
-agent for Andy Wozniewski
-liasion to NHL disciplinary committee, Philadelphia Flyers
-president, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
You can't make this stuff up! Unless you can.
But if you stay, if you deny them that hope of renewal, they might just blame you.
And if you really do bleed blue, wouldn't you want the Leafs to get better? If you were traded and then re-signed in Toronto, wouldn't it be fun to have Steven Stamkos on your wing next season or the one after?
In the end, I bet when Fletch comes to you at the deadline with a deal in hand, to a team you like, you will go. You're too proud to stay when you're asked to leave.
But if you don't, if you refuse to waive that no-trade, there is only one conclusion that can be reached: that you really aren't that hungry to win a Cup.
I don't think that's true. But some do.
And many more will, if you are still a Toronto Maple Leaf on Feb. 27.
Dave Nonis is 41.
ADVENTURES IN LOGIC: From the Globe's Wings-Leafs game story, "It was Hockey Day in Canada, but when referee Dan Marouelli dropped the
puck for the opening face-off there wasn't a Canadian on the ice. There
were four Czechs (Hasek, Jiri Tlusty, Kaberle, Pavel Kubina), an
American (Brian Rafalski), a Russian (Datsyuk), four Swedes (Sundin,
Lidstrom, Henrik Zetterberg, Tomas Holmstrom), a Finn (Toskala) and a
Kazak (Antropov)." I don't need to spell it out, do I?
"...It doesn't seem like it ever changes in Toronto. The Leafs are always bad. Every year, it's the same thing. The Canadiens haven't won the Stanley Cup for the longest time, but we usually have a respectable team here. And, if it's bad for a few years, it gets good really fast. In your city, it doesn't seem to matter. You have an awful team, year after year, but that arena is filled every night. Don't the people care?"
It is clear that Working Class Howard's Limousine Driver and myself have a much different idea of what respectable means, and I don't recall the Leafs having a bad team "year after year". No matter what Cox, Simmons, Berger, Habs fans, random people on the street, the Woz, and everyone else try to tell us, Leafs fans can actually remember that the team has been pretty good over the last decade plus. Good enough to win the Cup? Unfortunately not, but if we were to pick an arbitrary number of seasons...say 13, in honour of our hopefully-soon-to-be-departed (but still-beloved) Captain...we would see that the Leafs have been relatively successful, especially compared to our "usually respectable" friends to the east.
Let me explain.
In 1993, the Montreal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. Many Leafs fans believe that if it weren't for Kerry Fraser, the Leafs would have defeated the Habs for the Cup. I'm not one of those fans. The way Patrick Roy was playing, no one was beating the Habs that year. However, since 1993, the last time one of these great rivals hoisted the Cup, here is how things have gone:
Montreal Canadiens
- 453 regular season wins
- Qualified for the playoffs seven times
- Winners of three playoff rounds
- Zero trips past second round of playoffs
- 498 regular season wins
- Qualified for the playoffs nine times
- Winners of nine playoff rounds
- Appeared in three Conference Finals
Did I mention the local reporters? Of course I did, because Howard wasn't content to just let his Limousine Driver take shots at Leafs fans. He had to get in on the act too:
And, that's the essence of it, in a nutshell. Leaf followers are the champion of two-faced sports fans. They bitch and moan and curse at their team; even cheering for the opposition as in the late stages of the Florida massacre Tuesday night. But, they have no capacity to offer meaningful resistence. Like sheep, they mindlessly flock to the arena every hockey night, in every disastrous season.
Champion of two-faced sports fans? Sheep? Mindlessly flocking? Pot Brownies? WTFFFFF?
The moral of this story, The Tale of Working Class Howard and His Limousine Driver, seems to be that Habs fans should be applauded for being a bunch of front-runners (which I don't actually think they are), and Leafs fans should be ashamed for supporting their team through thick and thin and thinner and severe cases of anorexia.
I will never understand this. The Boston Red Sox didn't win championship for 86 years, yet their fans stayed loyal to the team through years of heartbreak and humiliating punishment that we are only beginning to understand as Leafs fans.
When the suffering of those dedicated fans was finally rewarded with a World Series victory in 2004, the media didn't call them a bunch of fucking idiots for standing by their team all those barren years. No, everyone seemed to be rooting for the Red Sox that year. Romantic-comedies were produced, celebrating the obsessive loyalty of the Boston faithful. Books were written. Afflecks weren't mocked. Tearful stories were told of old men, born in 1918, dying the day after the Yankees hammered the Sox in game three to take what seemed like an insurmountable lead in the ALCS, never to see their team win the World Series.
People felt sorry for Red Sox fans. They admired their loyalty.
We will never be seen with sympathy. Somehow, we have the stigma of Yankees fans, without the reward of winning lots of championships. Whatever. I'm not ashamed, no matter how much Working Class Howard and his Limousine Driver think I should be.
We all know the Great One has gotten away with murder before. Professional sycophant Ron MacLean (a steal at only 10K!) continued to ensure that none of Wayne's mistakes go unexcused on Saturday night's Hotstove. Discussing Team Canada's 2004 debacle in Turin, MacLean dissembled "well, none of that was Wayne's fault." Really? I guess it was Dave Semenko who picked Todd Bertuzzi and left Sidney Crosby at home. Break me a %$$* give.
Also, I enjoyed Working Class Howard's analysis of the Leafs' roster and the possible changes that might ensue, though I agree with PPP that he was a little harsh on Steen, otherwise it was interesting and well-reported (who knew that Kubina was so respected?).
And since it's been a while since we had a contest around here, let's play something I'm calling Blue and White Bargain Bin. It's simple - in the comments, pick the five Leafs you think are most likely to be moved off the team - one way or another- by the deadline. Winner gets the knowledge that they know more inside poop than Dreger and Eklund put together, and maybe a post on the Bloc? So yeah, not much. Your picks in the comments, please...
Saw that the Ottawa Sun's preview of tonite's tilt is filed under "Senators 05-06." At least Habs fans live in a past where they actually won Cups. Brennan also points out that Shane Hnidy is back in a hockey hotbed after the "relative obscurity" of Anaheim. That's the same Anaheim flying a Cup banner after last season's throttling of Ottawa, right? Oh I forgot, it's 2006. The Ottawa segment of our upcoming series touring the media markets of Canada's other NHL cities is gonna write itself.
