Mahalo, Mats
I tell ya, I'm exhausted by the unending inanity of the last few days, so tonite, when it comes to the mittenstringers, I'm going through the motions like Sid Vicious at a house show in Cornwall. Rosie DiManno made a cryptic reference that outed her as a Blochead (fart in a mitten? Is that you Varry?), Burnside gloated about being a moron who thinks trashing Mats and embarrassing the franchise even further would somehow help (nothing like destroying Mats' trade value, pissing off all the fans, and making sure no stars want to play here to help rebuild the team. Is Burnside dyslexic? We want 1967 back, not 1976.) and Damien Cox crawled out from under his bridge to scare children with his usual blend of dishonest arguments and confused invective - although calling McCabe "Toronto's Bobby Orr" was deliciously bitchy by even TEH COX's low standards. When Eklund is almost a voice of reason, that pretty much sums it up. Have at it in the comments, or (please) make fun of the deadline coverage - unfortunately I'll be at work and could use the laughs.
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.
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.
Really?
I would have said that Burnside and Cox were pretty bang on (DiManno's writing is like a 17 year old girl's livejournal, and I just don't have the stomach for that).
With Burnside, yeah, it's probably too over the top. But as far as I can tell the big point he's trying to make is that nobody in Leaf-land seems ever willing to make hard choices. He's painting the situation like it's a game of poker. In that framework, the Leafs would have been far better off forcing Sundin to call their bluff than simply leaving the fate of the franchise in his hands. Great guy, great captain, and I can't blame him for this, but he just doesn't have the team's best interests in mind. Obviously.
That's not to say that I don't completely sympathize with and support Mats's decision. It's that he, literally, by definition, has his own interests in mind, and not the Leafs'.
From their perspective, it's just not a very smart way to run a business.
But... OK. You bring up the concern about fans being alienated, though I don't really think that holds water. A) If they're not already alienated after the last four years, they're probably not going to be and B) If there is a chance that fans will turn their backs on the organization, it's far more likely to come as a result of keeping this sorry group together next year.
I mean, how could you possibly worry about embarrassing the Leafs? At this point that's sort of like worrying about making the ocean too wet. Zing!
Oh, and not to be too much of a pedant here (and forgive the drunken ramblings that I'm already too deep into) but even though I know what you're driving at with the 1967 comment, did the Leafs not back their way into the playoffs and win the Cup as a bit of a fluke that year? (or maybe "against the odds", "on grit and determination", whatever BS you want to call it).
I think we can set the bar higher, no? Funny when you think about it that Leafs Nation would strive for that kind of success though, huh? (Or maybe not funny at all?)
I'm also going to have to take issue with the stuff about a Sundin trade having the potential to be the magic bullet. You're probably right that the more important move is bringing in a top GM, but they've lost a huge enticement by not having the haul from a Sundin deal in place. Think Colangelo would be with the Raptors had Wayne Embry not have managed to unburden the team of Jalen Rose's salary in that deal with the Knicks?
The Leafs situation now is much less desirable for a potential GM. Contrary to popular belief, guys aren't going to drop everything to wade into this mess. That's why Fletcher is here-- to give the next GM a good starting point. Right now, he's failing.
Beyond that, I don't really feel I should have to point out the flaws in the rest of the reasoning against a Sundin trade, but I can't resist at least a little bit...
I mean, true, draft picks and prospects are a crap shoot. But when opposed to three months of a great player on a non-playoff team, who is probably good enough to drag the team close enough to the playoffs that they significantly (negatively) impact their draft slot??? ... Jeez, Mats is nice, but you can't just look at one side of the coin here.
Actually, this takes me right back to Burnside's point about nobody wanting to make the hard decisions. It's a moot point now, but it's really, really clear how much more beneficial to the Leafs it would have been to have hauled in a couple prospects and a pick and at the same time improved their own draft standing. Love Mats and all, and he's completely within his right to have said No, but from the organization's standpoint, three months of him being comfortable in his own bed is just about the worst possible outcome here. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how anyone could reasonably argue any other way.
Oh, and on a different tack, there are spots where there's just something about the language you're using that's a little maddening. Not only in this piece, but in others as well, there is a tendency to use phrases that you seem to intend to stand clearly on their own, but which are really just meaningless until you explain how the hell you mean what you say-- which you don't.
Saying Cox uses "dishonest arguments and confused invective" and expecting some sort of impact from that as though anyone ought to know where and how you mean doesn't make sense. I mean, maybe it works if you've already convinced someone, or they aren't reading closely or are scared off by the fancy words, but otherwise, it's pretty meaningless without any sort of link to Cox's text to back it up. Same with the statement about Eklund. Maybe these are inside jokes that I just don't understand or are redundant for your site at this point. I definitely know how that all works, but when it's just thrown in there like it's something we should accept at face value, it's sort of uncomfortable. For me, at least. Does that even make sense?
OK... I think that's all. Sorry for the ridiculous screed here. I really don't mean for it to come off like an affront, I just genuinely and deeply disagree with some stuff here. Thing is, I actually have been reading, so keep it up. It's just... some nights I can't help but go off like this. Hope you understand... now let's see if I actually have the balls to hit submit...
Best regards,
Stoeten
Do you want updates here?
Apparently Belak to the Panthers for a 5th rounder.
The Eklund comment is easy. If you've read hockey blogs at all in depth then you know exactly what it means when he mentions how odd it is to see him be the voice of reason.
Expecting a new reader to know that or for Godd to explain that every time he makes an Eklund reference is a bit much. That's why Google exists:
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/yeeeeek/
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/who_is_eklund_er_susan_oops_sorry_maybe_flyguy31_or/
As for the dig at Cox, it is definitely redundant at this point. If you've been reading the site for any period of time then you know to what Godd is referring and if not then there are tags at the bottom that will let you see all of his 'usual blend of dishonest arguments and confused invective.'
You also can't argue both sides of the same coin with regards to Mats. You want the Leafs to make the hard decisions (disgrace Mats, embarrass the franchise) in order to bring in picks and prospects that would have been a huge enticement to a potential President/GM. However, those actions that are being championed would also turn players away from wanting to join the Leafs and would be black marks against the franchise. Trying to attract UFAs and keep players would be that much harder and that can't really be an enticement either.
I'm glad you hit submit and hope that you keep doing it. I look forward to Godd and Kim's responses.
...going through the motions like Sid Vicious at a house show in Cornwall.
That. is. funny.
@PPP: Good point re: the franchise's treatment of Sundin having an impact upon UFA's coming to the club in the future. Things like that need to be considered more carefully by management - it still bothers me that Rob Ramage - our captain at the time - was left unprotected and claimed in the expansion draft of 1991; truly embarrassing. The organization needs to treat the players with respect in order to (hopefully) engender loyalty and dedication from the troops.
It doesn't work all the time, of course. I seem to remember the Jays carrying a pitcher (whose name escapes me right now) who had a blister problem for about four years. Blister healed, free agency offer came, pitcher left. Greed 1, Loyalty 0. Oh well.
Junior, you're thinking of Al Leiter, who they traded Jesse Barfield for. He did help them win the Series in 92 though.
I also wonder about folks who dump on Mats, but don't say a word about the rest of the NTC Five. Of course Mats is worth plenty more than Tucker, but surely even Tucker (especially Tucker?) is currently worth less to the Leafs than his weight in prospects. So why doesn't Darcy, a pretty high-profile player in this town, have to explain himself on the front page? Ditto for Kabs, but who would dare impugn the character of the only guy in town who could command a trade worthy of an All-Star?
We didn't even make Kubina play the "I'm a Torontonian" card so we could all have a chuckle.
And then there's McCabe...
Yes yes, they have a contract, they're entitled to say no, blah blah. But this seems to be a case where Leaf Fan Rage, normally diffused into a shotgun-blast of anti-management/anti-coach/anti-GM/anti-player-du-jour frustration, is a laser beam of focussed fury - at entirely the wrong guy.
Remember when we all hated Peddie, like, a whole month ago? Wasn't that fun? Guys?
Cox is in fine form today, applauding Gainey for having the guts to make the "hard choice" of executing the stupidest trade of the day. Apparently the Leafs are lacking someone that will make unpopular and risky decisions that may or may not pay off. Things like oh, I don't know, trading Tuukka Rask for Andrew Raycroft perhaps?
Yeah, we need more of that like a hole in the head.
@Paul D:
AL FRICKIN' LEITER!!! That's the guy! Thank you. I can go back to my normal life now and stop trying to think of that dude's name. My employer thanks you.
@Jacques Strap:
At first, I agreed with you about Gainey's trade. On further reflection, though, it makes excellent sense if you accept one fundamental proposition: Gainey knew that Carey Price was, is and will be better than Huet. If Price is going to be your number one, keeping in mind the dollars Huet will want to re-up (and knowing that, unlike the Leafs, you don't want to pay multiple million dollars for a backup goaltender), you might as well trade him now and get something for him. In fact, there's an argument to be made that this decision is just the next logical step in the Habs plan for goaltending succession - see my thoughts on this issue here.
P.S. - I'm not a dirty Habs fan or an apologist for Bob Gainey...
Yeah, Cox's piece beggars belief. One of us will definitely take a run at it.
BTW, Jacques, you and I tied for the win in the Blue & White Bargain Bin contest: details to follow.
As to our good friend stoeten, while I appreciate the effort expended in writing comments twice as long as the original post, I can't help feeling you are often being contrary for the sake of it.
Others pointed out my main objections above, but I also feel you are viewing the post out of context.
Gettingg assets for Mats would have beeen a coup for the franchise, but it would also have been a sad day. The point is, Mats has earned the right to have whatever decision made respected. The other NTC 4, while a blow, deserve to have their contracts respected too. So venom is misdirected; this is JFJ's mess. That's why the next decision is the important one - I was trying to stress the big picture and inject a note of optimism in what was a bleak day. And make a few jokes along the way. No more, no less.
Hope you keep stopping by.
In case you missed it, Bill Houston said Mats was exactly like Leiter (and Tracy McGrady!) cause he took care of him, not the team.
Re: Huet, trading him wasn't the problem; it's a postion of strength and he had value. It's the meager return (barely more than Kilger) that smacks of poor planning/desperation/all around crappy GMing, especially on a day whre they added no help. Cox trying to spin this as an example of Gainey's genius on a day where the hockey world was scratching their head is laughable and another example of his nonsensical contrariness/Gainey fetish.
Mr. Till, I am not Rosie DiManno. Really. No, really.
HE COMPARED MATS TO TRACY MCGRADY!?!?!?!?!
I would cross the street to club the latter in the knee with a bat while I would throw myself in a puddle to keep Mats' feet wet.
That, my friends, is the difference between the two.