VINTAGE LEAF MEMORIES

As trade rumors swirl, looking at some recent ex-Leafs not doing too badly

2012-01-28T22:00:00.004-05:00

Tomorrow, I will launch (well, that's a pretty big word...maybe "start" is closer to the truth...) a new mini-series of sorts, called "The Leaf Legacy in my lifetime". It is designed to appeal to "newish" or first-time Leaf followers, or those who may simply be curious about the club's history.

To be clear, this will not be a historical piece in the sense of being detailed and researched. In keeping with the pieces I post here, it will simply be some personal reflections on what I recall as key moments in the team's history, from the 1950s to the present.

If you know young Leaf fans who might be interested in these types of stories, by all means spread the word. I'm hoping to post probably one a week or so over the next couple of months.

Thanks.

Leaf world seems to be waiting with baited breath for the puffs of white smoke to appear from the rooftop at the Air Canada Center any moment now. There has been so much talk about what management may or may not do in terms of possible trades. There are the usual big name rumors (Getzlaf, Stastny, Carter...) and then there is the belief that Burke will do something none of us expect, a la Phaneuf deal a couple of seasons ago.

Whether anything happens just after the All-Star break and before the end of January (which is kind of my guess, but it's an un-educated guess), well, we'll find out pretty soon. I sense most of us are in agreement that while the Leafs desperately want to make the playoffs (who's kidding who, the future is most important, of course, but there is an imperative to get to the dance this spring, too...) they will not make a move simply to make the playoffs in April. Any move will have a long-term benefit as its intention.

In any event, trades are a fun time for almost everyone—except the players involved and their families.

For the fans, mid-season deals invigorate hope (or get us off the ledge…) as their beloved teams make the mad dash toward the playoffs and hopefully more than just a token appearance therein.

Since Brian Burke is given much credit for so many of his moves during his three plus seasons in Toronto as General Manager (and in some cases, rightfully so), it’s only fair to look at how some of the guys he sent away or chose not to re-sign are faring. I think most of us agree he has done some nice things while re-stocking the system and building a faster, deeper and more entertaining team. I’m not as convinced as some that his record is virtually untarnished here (or before he got here), but that’s part of being fans—we all see things a bit differently…

I’m not, to be clear, trying to assess things within the “who got traded for whom” and “who got the better of the deal” context—simply providing some chit-chat about former Leafs and whether they have found fortune and a better (or worse) hockey life elsewhere.

I’m not going to go through every player move and every guy who has left town. I’ve just picked a few names that were significant pieces (or draft choices who turned out to be significant, in the case of Tyler Seguin, for example) in trades that Burke has made.

Some names that come to mind:

Ian White: White was the only guy in the Phanauef/Aulie trade that I was sad to see go. He was, I thought, a hard-working little defenseman who had skill and guts, too. He has somehow managed to move from Calgary to Carolina to San Jose and finally Detroit since he first played in the NHL as a youngster with the Leafs. Was he playing poorly in those places, or was he just always the “guy” that the next team wanted? I have no real idea, but I know that, from what I’ve seen and by most accounts, he has played awfully well with the Red Wings this season. We can credit playing with Lidstrom (and that sure doesn’t hurt) but he still has put together a very nice season as we reached the All-Star break. He is a plus 26 in 46 games, notching 24 points along the way on a solid Detroit team. So while the Leafs don’t miss White because they have plenty of depth on the blueline (and puck movers like Liles and Gardiner), we can’t just dismiss him. At 27, White should be in his prime and productive for a few more seasons.

Kris Versteeg: the much-travelled, shoot-from-the-lips ex-Leaf winger, like him or not, has helped make the Panthers competitive this season when people like myself certainly expected not too much from him—and nothing from his (current) team. His overall offensive numbers have dipped somewhat of late, but he still has 43 points in 47 games and is a plus player (plus 10) on a mediocre, at best, Eastern Conference team. Why the guy has been with so many NHL organizations, again, like White, I just don’t know. But he can be a good hockey player. As I’ve said in this space before, he is, ironically, one of the kinds of players the Leafs need—a strong third-line guy, who can play second-line minutes sometimes on a good team. At 25, if he stays healthy he can be a player for some time yet.

Tyler Seguin: has quietly been a strong contributor for the Bruins this season. We all understand the Leafs did not trade Seguin—they dealt the first round pick for Kessel and the pick turned out to be Seguin. But again, while some fans don’t want to discuss it, it is what it is: a major trade in Burke’s tenure that may, as time unfolds, be part of what defines whether he is/was successful here. Seguin is not a super-physical player (neither is Kessel, of course) but he certainly has skills that are, if not rare, not seen every day, even in the NHL. He sees the ice awfully well for a young guy. I will grant that his plus/minus (he is plus 34, the best in the league) has to be partly (largely?) related to playing on what so far has been the best team in the East, one with a really good goal differential. His line mates aren't too bad, either. But it can’t all be that. The kid can play at both ends of the ice already, and given that he is 20 years of age, should get better—and better.

Viktor Stalberg: Now here is a guy who went the other way in the original Versteeg deal. We were getting a young winger who could grind a bit, score and had a Cup on his resume in return for a young guy without those proven credentials. Now we have neither (but a young prospect to come for Vertseeg, yes). To be honest, while Stalberg showed a couple of flashes in his time here, I was nonplussed by his departure. It struck me at the time that the Hawks would take almost anything because they had to move some non-absolute core players to meet cap realities after winning their Cup. But it now looks as though Stalberg may (and I stress may) be finding a modest niche, and maybe more than that, with the Hawks. Half way and a bit through his second season in the Windy City, he has 29 points and is a solid plus player. It’s hard to say Burke will end up "winning" that deal, but we’ll see how Stuart Percy (part of the return for Versteeg), a fine junior player, develops here.

Nik Antropov: the long-maligned Antropov infuriated hopeful Leaf fans for seemingly forever. He was finally moved near the deadline in 2009. His “numbers” have generally been OK (he has something like 20 points with Winnipeg this season) but though the Leafs want a forward with size, he’s not a player fans are wanting to see back with the blue and white. The long experiment never quite worked out here.

Jay Harrison: He was seemingly never going to have a shot at a regular gig here. He’s carved out a nice career with the struggling Hurricanes, playing significant minutes. He’s a solid guy, a fine team player and this season, he’s putting up some fairly serious offensive numbers—with 19 points, including 7 goals, in only 41 games. That’s pretty good.

Tomas Kaberle: I've been a Kabby guy for years but he has pretty much floundered since leaving Toronto. He went from being a potential difference-maker to number-six defenseman by the end of the playoffs for the Bruins in 2010-'11. The Hurricanes gave him a ridiculous contract this past summer for a guy clearly on the downside of his career and they moved him elsewhere as soon as they could this season. With Montreal, his minutes some nights are pretty limited, but his basic numbers aren’t dreadful (after a horrible start in Carolina). With the Habs, he has 13 points in 20 games and is a plus 2 in mostly “protected” minutes.

Jiri Tlusty: is having a quiet year with the Hurricanes (18 points in 51 games and a minus 3 rating). Sounds like some Leaf third and fourth-liners.

Dominic Moore: Moore is a player that I really like, because he is an old-style industrious player. That said, he misread the market when he left Toronto, and after helping the Habs in that one playoff run and playing solid hockey for Tampa last season, has kind of slipped back under the radar this year because the Lightning have been pretty awful so far. He is a minus 8, probably not all his fault, but maybe not quite good enough for a player who makes his living largely as a checker. He will likely be moved before the deadline to a contending team that needs just what he provides.

Alex Ponikarovsky: Like Antropov, he was the young winger who showed eternal promise but always left us wanting more. He seems stuck in neutral still with Carolina, as his high "minus" total and poor offensive numbers suggest.

Francois Beauchemin: He has always been highly-thought of as a good NHL defenseman, though he never quite found his stride here. He is playing big minutes in Anaheim. He is a steady presence on a Ducks team desperately trying to find its way back in the playoff picture in the Western Conference. He cost Bob Murray a lot in that trade, and just signed a new long-term contract. They are happy with him, but the Leafs would never take that trade back, eh?

Nik Hagman: Modest numbers, modest career since he left Toronto.

John Mitchell: I realize the first reaction of many Leaf fans is to say he's not missed. And in truth, his tenure here was marked by occasional glimpses of skill and size with prolonged periods of largely invisible play. Yet he is a solid young guy and he is managing to hold down a job as a fourth-liner under a demanding coach in New York city. He's put up five goals on the season.

Tim Brent: A personal favorite, I thought he was a real team-guy last season, taking on the tough jobs. I’m not sure we are any better in his spot than when he was here. With Carolina, though, he has a sure job and a better contract. His numbers are what you might expect with the ‘Canes (15 points, even in the plus/minus category) but he’s a hard-working player.

Jason Blake: He has dealt with some very serious injuries and illnesses in his career. By all accounts he has played pretty well in Anaheim when he’s being able to suit up. But he was never a fit in Toronto, it seemed.

Matt Stajan: Popular guy in Toronto, his career has seemingly not taking off in Calgary. He has low point totals and is likely not quite the grinder Sutter wants.

Fabian Brunstrom: The former free-agent signing has played a handful of games with the Red Wings this season. Did the Leafs miss something? Likely not.

That’s a lot of “ex-Leafs”. I don’t know if fans would want any of them back, but we have to, objectively, acknowledge that some have done pretty well since leaving town.

Tim Thomas: personal values matter most, but did he trump the team?

2012-01-27T21:45:00.001-05:00

If you might by chance be interested in an All-Star-related column, here's something I worked on a while back...click here

With the many pieces out there on the game itself, you may have missed my piece on Phaneuf, his leadership and one of the legendary Leafs, a true leader. Click here

A couple of oldies but hopefully still goodies...

Goalie Eddie Chadwick was the last true Leaf ironman

How Kessel reminded me in his early days here (and still does, in some ways...) of another high-flying Leaf

****

Hey, this is a hockey site, more specifically a Maple Leaf rest stop. I like that people can come and visit, chat, and share their views if so inclined.

I think those who drop by periodically know I don’t intentionally try to incite negativity around the sport or the Leafs. If that makes this site a bit too much like pablum for some, I get that. But I guess at this point—not only in my life but as a overall life observer and someone who loves hockey while has investing a lot of emotion in the Leafs over five decades—I prefer thoughtful, reflective and measured conversation versus hype, arguments and button-pushing. I love a good discussion as much as the next person and can get animated just like anyone else, but everyone has a right to their view, eh?

That all said, with the Leafs off the ice for a week, I figured it is as good a time as any to ask a question that goes well beyond the Leaf talk we usually engage in. The “issue” I wanted to touch on has to do with Tim Thomas, and his stand (a very public one) about not attending with his teammates when the Bruins were invited to the White House.

I want to be clear about one thing: I’m not really looking for a debate on Thomas’ political views. (For what little it’s worth, I’ve probably voted for every Canadian political party possible at some point in my life, but I long, long ago gave up on “believing” in any politician or political party.) I know that Thomas has been vilified by many for supposedly being stupid, narrow, selfish—and much worse.

My position is: I basically don’t have one. I will only say that I tend to nod quietly and applaud when people who genuinely feel passionate about something stand up for their values in a positive and constructive fashion. Holding a “minority” opinion or value doesn’t make a person “wrong”, clearly, any more than holding a “majority” opinion or value makes someone “right”.

(Quick aside: I’ve long written elsewhere about the dichotomy—a double-standard of sorts, really— that many athletes face. When they say nothing, they are labeled as dull, boring and full of nothing but empty clichés. If they say something outside the accepted “box”, they tend to get jumped on by the same media people that call them bland. It’s often a no-win situation….)

Politics aside, my question is: regardless of what you feel about Thomas and his apparent political views and whether you support him or not, do you think his decision not to attend the White House ceremony will negatively impact his team’s chemistry the rest of this season and beyond?

The Bruins lost their first game after the kerfuffle (with Rask in goal) and they gave up an un-Bruin-like 5 goals. I’m not suggesting there was a co-relation between the Thomas media frenzy (that yes, he created himself) and the Bruin letdown in their last game before the break. But it was interesting to note.

Let’s be clear. Thomas was up front. He could have begged off and pretended to be sick, for example, and no one would have said a word. But he had long ago, it sounds like, chosen to make a very public statement.

He’s not the first person to skip or “boycott” a White House invitation. But he did it in an era when the media (in all of its incarnations) is so widespread that it obviously was going to be pretty big "news" (well, at least on a slow news days...).

It was clear that the Bruin management group was not pleased, though they did their best to “defend” Thomas’ decision publicly, if you can call it that. Players also were not overly impressed, if you read between the lines of the public comments that were made.

I think we all realize that we tend to admire, like, look up to, whatever we want to call it…people we agree with. When we disagree with a person or something they say, do or write catches us by surprises and disappoints us, if we’re honest, it can change our opinion of them. And I wonder if that is fair.

Heck, I think about that sometimes with this site. I post pretty much every day. Chances are I am going to write something, at some point, that will bother or offend someone, or pen something that others will vehemently disagree with. Does that mean that, if people otherwise have enjoyed visiting here, they should stop reading my stuff? You would hope not, but my guess is we have all done that sort of thing, feeling that we no longer like or respect someone—again, simply because we disagree on an issue that means something to us.

So yes, it s a tough thing. It’s easy to criticize someone about their beliefs or actions when it’s an issue that doesn’t seem like a big deal to us. And I go back to my initial question for you: will Thomas’ decision—and the way he handled it so publicly— harm the Bruins in the weeks and months ahead, in your opinion? Will that always precious but ever-fragile team “chemistry”, that togetherness and harmony that binds teams and teammates—and makes them willing to battle with and for one another—somehow be affected and maybe even lost in Beantown?

It’s an interesting question. Did the values of one guy kill, or just temporarily wound, what the Bruins had that was so key and helped make them the best team in the world a year ago—emphasis on the word team.

Phaneuf, leadership and memories of George Armstrong

2012-01-26T22:05:00.003-05:00

I would venture to say that the jury is still out as to whether or not Dion Phaneuf is a great captain. In truth, while there are indications he is—now in his second season ”on the job”—growing into the position reasonably well, it’s probably too soon to even say he is a really good captain just yet. (I recognize that some of you will not agree...)

He came to town with a (unfair?) reputation as someone who was perhaps a bit too something in Calgary, a guy who maybe achieved “stardom” a bit too soon and maybe rubbed teammates the wrong way. Was he too loud, too brash, just too “Dion”? I have no clue, but for whatever reason, then-GM Darryl Sutter was ready to unload the one-time end-of-season All-Star (at a hockey-precocious age) for precious little, comparably speaking, in return. So something was amiss in Calgary, as former coach Mike Keenan and some others have seemed to suggest in the years that followed.

Here in Toronto he has, by all public accounts, the support of his teammates (though, they didn’t exactly come running to his defense after he was up-ended against the Sens a couple of games back). He is handling the daily media scrums that are expected of every Leaf captain reasonably capably, in a market where there is little room to hide. He’s not Mats Sundin in that regard yet, but neither was Mats in his first couple of years wearing the “C”.

On the ice, Phaneuf is certainly playing with passion. I can’t fault his effort. He makes mistakes but I’m trying to think of a defenseman who makes none. (That defenseman would be the first…) He provides the Leafs with a badly needed physical presence. I don’t think he is the toughest guy in the league by any means, or quite as tough as some think, but he also brings a bit of offense most nights and that helps make him a pretty well-rounded defenseman.

Whether Phaneuf will ever be a guy that will inspire others, well, I think we’re a ways off from knowing that. In truth, I don’t think too many captains actually have that—you know, the ability to say things, and then go out and act and play in a manner that actually makes those around them come alive and play even better than those teammates thought they could. That’s a very rare kind of leader.

I think Sundin, in many ways, was a good leader for the Leafs. I know he was not everyone’s cup of tea in Toronto, but he earned my respect over time. He played hurt, answered the bell and had a presence about him. He wasn’t a fighter and while hardly bellicose, he could drive to the hard areas and make things happen in close. I don’t know how much of a vocal guy he was, but the impression that most of us had was that he spoke when things needed to be said in the dressing room, and handled various percolating and potentially divisive team “issues” quietly, behind the scenes, whenever possible.

So Phaneuf has a long way to go to catch up with Mats in some ways, and that’s OK. Being a Leaf captain, as I mentioned in a post here not that long ago, has tended to be, in the last 40 years, not a career/lifetime job. Some of the great old-time names that you are aware of—Keon, Sittler, et al. did not leave happily (the job or the town). Even recent “legends” like Clark and Gilmour were traded while wearing the captain’s “C” here.

In fact, the last guy who wore the “C” for a long time (more than a few years) and retired as a Leaf was none other than “The Chief”, George Armstrong. (Clark and Gilmour “retired” as Leafs, but played for several other teams as well…)

Army, as he was also called, was the first Maple Leaf captain that I was old enough to remember when I became hockey “aware”, if you will, in the late 1950s. He was named captain for the 1958-’59 season, and held the responsibility through to the end of the 1968-’69 season, when he announced his retirement for the first time. (He came back to play, as it turned out, for parts of the next two seasons, but did not wear a letter…)

Armstrong (shown at left in one of those wonderful Harold Barkley photos, which includes ex-Leaf Dickie Duff and Terry Harper of Montreal- this one from the great Mike Leonetti book "Cold war" which I recommend highly...) is revered in Leaf lore for a number of reasons. The most obvious perhaps because he was indeed the team captain in the organization’s last true “glory” era, when they won those four Cups in the decade of the ‘60s, which coincided, not by accident in my view, with his stewardship of the team.

By all accounts, Armstrong was able to act as an effective go-between when it came to GM and coach Punch Imlach (who had a tyrannical quality about him) and Armstrong’s teammates—who were often furious with their coach. But Armstrong could negotiate and calm the unrest before things boiled over, at least most of the time.

On the ice Armstrong was a most unusual “star”. In fact, he probably never considered himself a star, and really wasn’t considered one around the League. I’m sure he was never on the end-of-season NHL All-Star squad. The guy had thin arms (he used to make fun of himself in that regard) and while a tall man, was not an overly “big” player. But he was impossible to move off the puck in the corners and along the boards, where he did some of his best work. He had strong legs and great balance. His shot couldn’t, as they say, break a pane of glass most of the time, but I’m going to say he scored about 250 goals in his long and distinguished NHL career, which lasted probably 20 seasons.

He was a smart player. He killed penalties until he was 40 years old, his very last year in the NHL. And it wasn’t because he was fast, because he wasn’t. But he knew where to be and how to play angles. He played both ends of the ice.

Interestingly, I don’t know how often I ever saw George Armstrong fight. But he played hard and was the epitome of an “honest” hockey player. (See the great old picture at right, of he and Dave Keon after the the Leafs won the Cup at the Gardens in the spring of 1963 against Detroit.) In their real hey-day, in the early ‘60s when they won three Cups in succession, the Leafs had a real team-tough identify about them. Bobby Baun, Tim Horton, Bobby Pulford, Eddie Shack, etc. These were guys who could take you out. And they had pluggers like Armstrong who constantly fought for the puck. It wasn’t always about dropping the gloves and fighting.

But primarily, Armstrong was a true leader. It’s not that the guy was a perfect player but he seemed to have the pulse of the team and kept their spirits up. While he was a shy guy in public (to this day, you rarely see him do interviews and he never attends autograph signings and that sort of thing, though he would be in great demand if he was so inclined…) he had a wicked sense of humor, we’re told. His old teammates love to talk about Armstrong and his practical jokes. In short he was a well-regarded guy who knew how to rally the troops and keep Imlach settled down when he was acting over the top. (I remember reading stories when I was a kid about how Imlach, during games, would have Armstrong go and yell at the referee when Punch thought the Leafs were getting screwed over. But sometimes Army knew Punch was full of it, so he would go over to the ref, gesticulate a lot as if he was really mad, wink at the ref and apologize for arguing and then go back and report to Imlach as though he had really let the ref have it…)

I know the ‘60s was a different time, and it’s a very different era in the NHL nowadays. But character is character. And that's something that Armstrong had in abundance. He wasn’t the best player (or even close) in his era, but he was one of the best leaders in hockey.

Everyone leads differently. Keon spoke through his actions on the ice. Sittler did that, too, and was also more of a vocal guy who played a physical game. Clark was quiet but inspired guys through his rugged hell-bent style, as did “Dougie”, who played with so much heart. Sundin was the classy, skilled captain.

I guess the question is: what will Phaneuf turn out to be, not only as a player, but as a Leaf—and as our captain?

I’d be interested to hear your assessment of what Leaf fans have in store in this regard in the years to come.

Be honest: what would satisfy you this season? And, what’s your Maple Leaf Stanley Cup “window”?

2012-01-25T21:00:00.005-05:00

I want to be clear right up front today. I think every guy who has ever been the General Manager of the Maple Leafs has been determined to win a Cup. They obviously haven’t been successful in the sense of bringing the Cup home, but whether we’re talking about Jim Gregory, Gerry McNamara, Cliff Fletcher, Pat Quinn or John Ferguson Jr., I am of the firm belief that each of those individuals did everything they could to bring a winner to Toronto.

Some, like Gregory, Fletcher and Quinn, brought us pretty darn close at times and built teams with qualities that we all enjoyed and often admired. But living up the the legend of Punch Imlach (pictured at left in the early '60s), who orchestrated and pulled the strings on the team that won four Stanley Cups in the 1960s, has not been easy for his successors.

I wrote a piece here some time ago called “The Leafs haven’t always been lousy” in the last forty-some years. And I will argue forever that that is true. There have been many incarnations of this team that have been very good over the past 45 years. Not good enough, I realize, but entertaining, talented, gritty, etc. They all came up short but they gave us thrills.

And everyone who has helped build those teams was trying to win it all. So Brian Burke, bluster aside, is no different. You might think he is better than some of the people who have been in charge of the franchise in the past, but he hasn’t proven that to me as yet. He won a Cup in Anaheim, yes, building on a tremendous foundation that Bryan Murray had left for him. And that’s great. But his actual record of delivering in the playoffs beyond that is sketchy, at best, in his four stops (Hartford, Vancouver, Anaheim and of course, Toronto), covering 13 years, I think it is, as a GM.

That said, Burke has brought the Leafs back to some semblance of life. He is now well into his fourth year on the job. When he came, and for some time thereafter, he boldly stated that he had no patience for the classic “five-year re-build”. Of course, that’s precisely what we are in the midst of. And that’s fine for most of us, I sense, as long as he ultimately gets the job done.

But that’s my question for today: what is “getting the job done” in modern-day terms for our Maple Leafs?

I guess what I am really interested in hearing from you is, what will constitute enough “success” to make you feel happy—or satisfied—as a Leaf fan? I realize people are coming at this from their own perspective and through a very personal lens. If you are 22 and have your “life ahead of you”, as it were, you may be happy if the Leafs simply contend for a Cup here and there over the next ten years.

If you’re at my end of the scale (pushing 60), you may be in a bit more of a hurry.

So here’s the thing…just with regard to this season for the moment, is making the playoffs good enough for you? Do they have to make it and win a round, or just make it?

Is it enough that they get close to a playoff spot but play entertaining, energetic hockey through the rest of the season?

Longer-term, is it Stanley Cup or bust? In other words, do they have to win a Cup in Burke’s tenure for his era to have been successful? Or will it be sufficient that he brought the team back from the brink of irrelevance?

Perhaps finally, if you feel a Cup is a must, when does that have to happen—in two years, five years?

Is getting to the finals down the road sufficient to make being a Leaf fan (in addition to the already-present inherent joy that it provides) what you want it to be?

I just thought that, with the break in the schedule and the team playing “OK” heading into the break, most Leaf followers should be in that mental “place” where they are neither feeling grim or too “heady” about the team's prospects. I think most of us see the progress, but also acknowledge the often-present (and usually hard to miss) gaps in their game.

Using the above questions as a bit of a guide, let me know where you’re at.

Now the Leafs can enjoy the break; loving Kessel on the off wing

2012-01-24T23:00:00.003-05:00

Those who dropped by for yesterday’s post will know that I saw a little extra value in the Leafs winning their second in a row against the Islanders on Tuesday night.

I said that not because the Islanders are some kind of important rival, either historically—though there was that great series in 1978—or even with regard to the current playoff chase. If anything, the Isles are a young team without much star-power (Tavares and some nice young players but not a lot else just yet…) and should be fodder for the Leafs.

No, my point was simply that, with a week off now before the next game, it was important for the Leafs to feel good about themselves heading into the break. Not that a win in their first game back wouldn’t accomplish much the same thing, but having a “streak” is something to feel really good about during your time away from the rink.

There were some obvious key elements to the contest, from the Leaf perspective. I thought Monster was steady again. We’re saying that in the same way we said it about Reimer a year ago—and that’s a good thing. Gustavsson’s “stats” are pretty good over this latest stretch where he has played a lot and more importantly, he is helping the Leafs garner as many points as possible—which will be crucial in April.

Of course Grabovski was outstanding, skating as he can and with eyes in the back of his head (particularly as he set up the crucial first Toronto goal in the dying seconds of the second period) while earning four points on the night. MacArthur finished twice, including that key first marker and the game-winner in overtime. (Interestingly, MacArthur only played 12 minutes…)

Jake Gardiner played huge minutes, controlled the puck smartly and scored his first goal on a shot that proved you don’t have to hammer it a hundred miles an hour—get it to the net and good things might happen.

Steckel won a ton of face-offs, at least that’s how it felt.

Yes, the Leafs caught a huge break on their third goal (when Grabbo’s shot bounced off a stick, up in the air and in behind Montoya) but the Isles caught one as well to tie the game late. And because the refs had essentially put their whistles away, what would normally have been a penalty in overtime was not called and the resultant rush became the winning goal for the Leafs.

But it was a road win, a comeback win, a win that was worth two points and as importantly, it will indeed send the boys off their on vacation with a smile on their faces.

One sobering thought, and it’s one we are all aware of: the hockey we witnessed the last two nights against the Islanders does not represent what is coming down the road—and is certainly not the kind of hockey we will see in the playoffs. The Islanders are a team in the midst of a major re-construction and the hockey was often sloppy. The Leafs have not been playing their finest hockey of late, either. Still, the Isles had won three in a row against some good teams prior to taking on the Leafs, so perhaps Toronto took some of the wind out of their sails.

Regardless, the points are in the bank- which is where they needed to be.

****

Phil Kessel was hardly the story of the game Tuesday night. In fact, he was pretty much a bit player, relatively speaking. But while Phil hasn’t been on the score sheet over the past few games as much as we have been accustomed to seeing this season, it was instructive to see him sparring with Islander players last night. He drew, not surprisingly, some extra attention and was standing his ground—which he will have to do when the checking becomes closer and closer as the season moves along.

One thing that I’ve really enjoyed seeing at times this season is when Kessel swings across the ice to make an offensive rush on his off wing. While I know he has not been blowing by guys as often lately down his customary right wing, he is especially dangerous for defensemen to deal with when he comes in on his off wing. He is able to control the puck at high speed and cut into the middle of the ice on his forehand. As a result, as often as not, he is able to unleash a dangerous (usually low) wrist shot. And because of the angle he releases the shot from and the way it comes off his stick, it’s usually very tough for the goaltender to handle, often causing rebounds.

I’m not suggesting Kessel should always play his off-wing (he’s obviously had plenty of success playing his natural side). But it’s good that Ron Wilson seems to allow the kind of creativity that makes Kessel so dangerous. It reminds me a bit of the way Bobby Hull played with those marvelous Swedes (Nillson and Hedberg) back in the 1970s with the old WHA Winnipeg Jets. There was a lot of “crossing over” and creative play—when that sort of thing was somewhat unusual in the “up and down the wing” NHL.

Come to think of it, in this over-coached, systems-oriented NHL—where the tiniest “mistakes” are on film forever and scrutinized by coaches—it’s unusual now.

In an era when the game can be awfully boring at times, I’m glad Kessel is not.

The next seven days—and maybe the season—depend on what happens Tuesday night on Long Island

2012-01-23T23:00:00.001-05:00

Some games aren’t worth a lot of comment. In truth, Monday game at the ACC was, for me, on of those tilts. Most of the game was a bit of a snore-fest, but I’m pretty sure that, when we look back at these games in January, we won’t much care how artistic it was. Fact is, the Isles came to town on the wings of three straight wins. Though they have been cellar-dwellers in recent years, they have, like most aspiring sides, some nice young talent that will be fun to watch in the years to come.

That said, they’re not exactly the ’77 Habs (nor are the Leafs, I should be quick to add), so the Leafs should take the game to the Islanders, especially on home ice. And they did.

Phaneuf was noticeable and physical but my thought was Gunnarsson was perhaps the most important Leaf. (Yes, Monster earned the shutout and make some good saves, but it was not a super-strenuous night for him. That said, he didn’t make the kind of mistakes that would have allowed the Islanders back in the game.) Gunner seemed to be in the right spot at the right time, and made a particularly deft little stick check in his own zone on a dangerous play in the second period when it was still a one-goal game. I thought it was a fairly typical Gunnarsson effort on the night, quietly effective.

Of course, you can’t forget the guy who scored two goals (Lombardi) or Kessel’s big marker to give the Leafs their two-goal cushion in the third period.

But maybe the one thing that stood out for me most on the night was not the game itself but a comment former Leaf defenseman Bob McGill (now an analyst with Leafs TV) made about Nazem Kadri. He seemed to draw a comparison with long-time NHL’er Steve Larmer (a one-time teammate of McGill), after Kadri had made a neat little play to win a battle along the boards.

I’ll post on this another time, but it did get me thinking. Steve Larmer…hmmm. That’s not a bad “comparison”, if you want to dream a bit. Larmer was a solid winger, not too big but very effective, with the Blackhawks from the early ‘80s to the early ‘90s. Larmer finished his career on Broadway, helping the Rangers win a Cup in 1994.

He scored more than 400 goals in his NHL career and was a solid all-around player, sort of a borderline Hall-of-Famer. I don’t think Larmer scored his first NHL goal until he was 21. How old is Kadri?

****

The thing I really wanted to focus on today is what comes next for the Leafs, as in the game Tuesday night on Long Island. You might recall that after the win over Minnesota last week, I mentioned that while the victory was nice and all (coming as it did against a floundering team), the key was what the Leafs did afterwards, over the subsequent games.

I would echo that thought now and add it is particularly the case this week. Earning two points on the road Tuesday night would be the perfect bookend for the Leafs heading into the All-Star break.

This brings to mind a story about which may not seem at all relevant at first. And I probably won’t do the story justice but I’ll try.

Some of you who visit this site are not football fans (“American” football, I am referring to) so some context is in order. In the early and mid-1960s, the Green Bay Packers were a National Football League team that had a great history and tradition. However, the franchise had come through some particularly harsh and down times throughout the 1950s. (In fact, it could be argued that their history was somewhat like that of the Maple Leafs. The Leaf franchise was founded by Conn Smythe, while the Packers were the brainchild of “Curly” Lambeau, if I’m not mistaken. Both were prominent men who built proud franchises when professional sports were really just gaining a foothold in the public sporting consciousness. Both men remain famous to this day.

In any event, the coach and General Manager of the Packers was Vince Lombardi. He never played in the NFL but was a well-regarded college and then assistant coach in the NFL. When he took command of the Packers in time for the 1958 season, he was a first-time NFL head coach. He instantaneously turned a one-win team into a contender—and ultimately, a dynasty.

This somewhat mirrored Toronto GM and coach Punch Imlach’s experience, He never played in the NHL, but coached in the minors before leading the Leafs, starting in, coincidentally, 1958. He went on to oversee a squad that would capture 4 Cups over the next decade. Lombardi ran the Packers with an iron first and led his charges to 5 NFL championships, but unlike Imlach, was beloved and revered by players and fans alike.

The Packers were not a wealthy franchise, In fact they were community-owned. One of their top defensive players, Willie Davis, was one of the best in the league at his position, defensive end. You have to understand that salaries were miniscule in those days compared to the multi-millions that professional athletes make now.

Davis, an All-Pro, was maybe making $12,000 or so a year in the early ‘60s. Maybe not even that, I remember reading some years later. Each off-season Davis would visit Lombardi in the GM’s office and ask for a $1,000 raise. Each year Lombardi would explain that, even though the team had had great success the season prior (everyone was on one-year contracts at the time), there was simply no room in the budget for that kind of an increase. Davis, being the good “team guy”, would walk out of the office and head back home, minus a raise.

And feel badly about himself.

This went on for a couple years. Finally, Davis went in one year and asked yet again. Lombardi started to give Davis the same song and dance when Davis stopped his boss and simply said, “Coach, this is how much the thousand dollars means to me: my getting or not getting that money will be the difference between feeling like I want to go home and hit my head against a wall, or feeling like a million bucks….”

I may be paraphrasing the exact words, but you get the idea.

Lombardi immediately shifted gears, reflecting on what his player had sacrificed over many years for his team, his community—and for Lombardi himself.

He told Davis, “Willie, if it means that much to you, then you have your raise.” I can’t remember if Lombardi gave Davis even more than he asked for, but the point was simply: as the management leader of the team, Lombardi represented the organization and its values. He was the guy who signed the cheques—and relied on the loyalty of his players in an era when that meant everything. He knew how important it was for a veteran player like Davis to feel good about himself.

While a thousand dollars was a fair bit of money in those days, it was worth it to Lombardi for his player to truly feel “like a million bucks”.

How does this relate to the Leafs?

Well, it’s not as touching as the Lombardi story ( a true story, by the way), I realize. But my point is simply this: after Tuesday night’s game, the Leafs will have a full week off before their next game on January 31. That one will be Game 49 in an 82-game season.

If the Leafs win Tuesday night on the road, they will go into the all-star break on a two-game win streak, having won three of four and in a tight battle for the final playoff spots in the East.

More importantly, they will have seven days to think about how they feel about themselves, their team, their season thus far. To go into that layoff on the heels of a couple of wins, a victory on the road and being in strong playoff contention…well, they just might feel like a million bucks.

But if they lose on the Island, against the struggling Islanders, and finish on a losing note as they head to their week-long break, they may feel like….well, like something less than a million bucks.

How much is a win worth? Are they all the same?

Yes and no. Tuesday night’s game, for my money, is not a “must win” or anything along those lines because of a temporary playoff “position”. But it is perhaps the most important game of the season for the reason I just mentioned: it’s a winnable game on the road against a team they can beat. And if they win, the Leafs can head into the break—and enjoy it—knowing that when they come back, those good feelings will still be with them, as they embark on the all-important final stretch run.

And they won’t feel like spending seven days hitting their heads against a wall.

The Leafs: working pretty hard versus unrelenting competitiveness

2012-01-22T21:00:00.006-05:00

One of the outstanding posters at Vintage Leaf Memories (Gerund O’), made what I thought was a particularly apt comment on the heels of one of my recent columns here. He said, and I quote, “what we’re (the Leafs) missing at the moment is someone with their unrelenting competitiveness.”

For me, that’s it—or at least a big part of where the Leafs are "at".

We all keep acknowledging and saying, this team is better. And it is. But better, of course, is a relative term. Better than what we have had in the last five or so seasons? Sure.

Better as in, we’re now good enough to challenge for something serious? I’m not so certain about that.

And Gerund O’ touched on—and said better than I can—the one thing that we may be missing is a player with that kind of drive....with....unrelenting competitiveness. But I’ll take it even a step further. (I’m guessing Gerund would, too.) We could use a team mentality that pushes it—everyone on the team— to play with “unrelenting competitiveness”.

I’ve talked here a lot recently about what I perceive as the lack of overall Leaf team toughness. Oh, the team plays pretty hard most nights. And there are some guys who hit (Phaneuf, Schenn, Brown on occasion, Kulemin when there is an eclipse…) and guys who will drop the gloves (Rosehill, Brown) but what I’m talking about is having guys who are really and truly hard to play against- and consistently so. I always go back to someone like Bob Gainey in the ‘70s and ‘80s. He rarely scored 20 goals a season, but my God, when you played against Gainey you knew you had been in a hockey game. He would lay you out (cleanly), rattle your bones, fight for every puck, make the simple, smart plays. He could skate like the wind, was so hard on the puck and so good defensively that they created the Selke Trophy largely because of him.

I remember closely watching (when I spent a lot of time at the Gardens watching the Leaf in those days) his 1970s battles with Lanny McDonald. And they were indeed battles. Two proud, determined players, neither of whom wanted to give an inch. Those were great nights to be a hockey fan, watching two future Hall-of-Famers in action, going toe to toe.

In more recent times, we saw it in the way the Devils checked ferociously, led by players such as the always easy-to-hate Claude Lemiux and John MacLean, among many others. And of course there was Scott Stevens and friends on the back line, who kept the opposition alert. Same with the Avalanche. Forsberg wasn’t just good, he wasn’t afraid to leave a piece of his wooden stick on you in you?) to create a bit of space for himself. Ditto Adam Foote. And it was also exemplified by a "third line" like Draper, Maltby and McCarthy in Detroit. That was like playing against a buzz-saw. You had to be ready and if you weren’t, you were going to lose.

In short, it's about a guy (or guys) who played every shift with passion, like they were on fire and the only way to put it out was to play with every ounce of energy that they had and sweat it out.

That’s what I’m talking about- and looking for.

Kessel and Lupul? Wonderfully gifted offensive players. And we keep hearing that Kessel is becoming a better all-around player, more defensively conscious. And from what I am seeing, I think that’s true, to an extent. He is, as Don Cherry pointed out the other night, also taking a fair bit of abuse from the opposition, and not surprisingly so. They know that he can’t/won’t do anything about it except complain to the refs. And, he doesn’t have many teammates who will do much about it, either.

As for Lupul, we’ll need to see more of his offensive skills and intensity on display in his own zone. As we all know, what you do there is just as important as what you do at the other end of the ice. It’s not much good if you score (or set up) a beautiful goal every night but you are standing around while the guy you’re covering pots two.

So that’s my soliloquy for the day. No thorough assessment of the good and the bad. Simply expressing my sense, that, if the Leafs are going to go anywhere and keep building on the team that Burke has assembled (one with, as we all keep saying, speed, youth and depth) they will also need to either add—or develop—the character/”winner” quotient. Whether they already have it in the dressing room and it just needs to develop or they need to acquire it, I’m not so sure.

But it’s a key next-step ingredient, and if they don’t get it, they can amass all the "talent", all the Marian Hossas’ and Ilya Kovalchuks’ in the world, but it won't be enough. Until they have the Bobby Pulford-type, a tough, 1960s grinding forward with the Leafs when they were Cup winners, my guess is they will ultimately fall short. (That's Pulford on the right, battling for the puck in the crease, in early '60s game-action at the Gardens against a very young Terry Harper and Montreal's future Hall-of-Fame goaltender Jacques Plante...) It can be a Pulford, or a Bobby Clarke, a Larry Robinson, a Terry O’Reilly, or maybe a Doug Risebrough, Bryan Trottier, Esa Tikkanen, Kris Draper, Rod Brind’Amour, etc… But it's got to be somebody, and it's got to be a team-wide attitude. Otherwise, we’ll end up watching the Leafs come playoff time and saying, “hey we’re so much better than we were, but....ah....what just happened...”.

And what will have happened is that a team with the same amount of, or perhaps even less talent, but who wanted it a lot more, will have just taken our guys out.

Leafs lose to the Habs: Quick hits on the current Leaf line-up

2012-01-21T23:00:00.007-05:00

My game comments will be brief. The Leafs lost a game that was up for grabs—really up for grabs. It was not, for me, anyway, one of the more inspiring mid-season Leaf-Hab encounters in recent memory. I expected more from the Leafs. Set aside that they are fighting for playoff positioning. They were (again) well rested, at home. It was a Saturday night, against their oldest rival—on Hockey Night in Canada.

Price was good, sure, but much of the night he didn’t have to be unbelievable.

Schenn was back to playing low minutes (11). Lupul was minus 3 on the night—meaning he has been a minus player in four of his last five games.

To the good, that was a sweet goal by Lombardi.

But will Phaneuf have anything left in the tank (about 28 minutes Saturday night) when they need him down the stretch?

Did Kulemin play? (You know what I mean…)

I know I’m in the minority, but could we use “tweener” third-liners like Stalberg or Versteeg now? (I know Versteeg wanted a bigger role here, but….)

Monster made some big saves, but my guess is we see Reimer Monday night.

****

I've been wanting to get your thoughts on the current Maple Leaf roster. To kick things off, I'll provide a kind of "first thing that comes to mind" approach when assessing what each player brings to the table. I don't suggest this is anywhere near an in-depth profile.

James Reimer- long-term is the most important thing here, not necessarily what’s happening for him right now. If you believe he can play—and I do—think future, if you’re Leaf management.

Jonas Gustavsson- before he was finally allowed to play a run of games, I’ve posted here often that Monster would be better off being set free to play—with confidence— elsewhere, where he might be better supported and appreciated. But if he can truly find his niche here—and the brass really does believes in him—that works, too.

Dion Phaneuf- rambunctious guy who usually makes his presence felt. Plays big minutes, has the booming shot. Makes mistakes but still growing as a player. A real leader? Still early to say.

Carl Gunnarsson- finesse player with smarts. Steady. Usually makes whatever partner he plays with better. Not a perfect “d” man but I think he will get better. Should be a keeper, though I know not everyone feels that way.

Keith Aulie- my guess is, while Aulie seems to be all legs and arms at times, we will like him more in three or four years, if Leaf management is patient enough to wait out his development.

Jake Gardiner- hard not to think his upside is indeed, as we have said here (and I’m sure it’s been said many other places) Scott Niedermayer-like. Smooth and calm are the words that come to mind. He’ll start to be a big-time point-producer, too, over time.

Mike Komisarek- not many guys with a bigger heart, will be interesting to see if he can handle big minutes/shutdown role if/as needed.

Luke Schenn- hard to believe he is already in his fourth season. My fear is that if he is ever moved, we will bemoan the loss of physical play at the back end, and some day will be seeking a defenseman just like him.

Cody Franson- Probably a better all-around defenseman than we were led to believe. Can skate just fine, more physical than I thought, though he can be vulnerable in his own zone. Can blast it from the point or get a quick wrister off, often low and dangerous.

John-Michael Liles- I really liked him when he first came up with Colorado and I think he has played pretty well at times with the Leafs. He can skate, pass and make plays. If he can get back healthy, I look forward to seeing him down the stretch.

Phil Kessel- we all see the skill set. This season has been a mini-breakthrough. But for me, the real test will come next season (what does he do for an encore?) and when the Leafs—and he, as the go-to guy—face the playoff spotlight.

Joffrey Lupul- he is probably playing the best hockey of his career, though I say that with not enough knowledge of the younger, healthier Lupul. Smart, skilled. He’s not the best defensive forward on the squad. What comes next?

Tyler Bozak- has speed, skill, is a creative passer, good on face-offs. Young and talented. Management has to determine what his ceiling is. I think it’s fairly high but not everyone agrees.

Mikhail Grabovski- He seems to have that little extra step in the last while. Shifty, determined, even feisty at times, though more so last season. Has had a hard time providing an encore to last year’s coming-out party. Will he be a playoff performer?

Clarke MacArthur- one guy that I’m still not sure what he is. Skates better than I give him credit for. Can finish. I just don’t know what to make of him.

Nik Kulemin- a year ago I was convinced he was maybe their most consistent all-around forward, because of his size, skating, defensive accountability and offensive production. Still believe all that. Has shown flashes this season but not a lot of consistent offense.

David Steckel- we know he’s good in the face-off circle, but don’t you have to do more than that? Can skate a bit. Doesn’t provide a lot of offense. Still not sure he’s a long-term fit here.

Matthew Lombardi- speed has always been his game. If you just saw a highlight reel of Lombardi’s best plays, you’d say the guy was an impact player. As it is, he has moments, but is too often invisible to me.

Mike Brown- some grit, plays hard. Has speed and can make offensive contributions. I guess the question for me is: is he as good or better than other good teams’ third and fourth-line guys?

Nazem Kadri- everybody seems to love his skill level. Personally, I’m still waiting to see it on a consistent basis. In fairness, he’s awfully young and you have to believe he will get better with time. It just feels like a slow developing movie plot. (I think he is so pre-occupied with what his coaches are telling him, we’re not seeing what he can do…)

Darryl Boyce- I love his story, and the route he took to get to the NHL. I’ll never criticize a guy who stayed with it long enough, the way he did, to make it to the NHL.

Joey Crabb- Crabb shows some sweet moves at times and is a nice third-line player. My difficulty is not with Crabb—more that the Leafs have too many guys in his category, that is, “bottom-three” forwards in a league that even the Leafs admit is going to a “top-nine” approach.

Colby Armstrong- I know he’s a popular Leaf. He’s an agitator, yes. I’m not sure that he is more than just another third-line player.

I'll keep saying it. The Leafs have every opportunity to make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. But I'll want to see more grit, more team toughness, somebody to step up and play with real passion. They play pretty hard most nights, but there has to be more in the tank, doesn't there? You have to hate to lose, right?

Again, these are just quick thoughts. I look forward to reading any opinions you might have.

Leafs that, well, I could do without- how about you?

2012-01-20T21:00:00.004-05:00

To be clear, this is not a column intended to criticize any of the current Leaf players. In fact, it’s a hard-working team that has certainly seemed to meet, maybe even surpass, the expectations of most Leaf fans. I like the effort I’m seeing most nights.

But if fans are honest, even on a team they really like, there may be individual players that they, say, wouldn’t be upset if those players were traded or perhaps played somewhere else. It doesn’t mean they aren’t good players, or aren’t valuable and really solid individuals.

In short, it’s a fan thing—very personal.

Here’s an example. Through the beginning of the 2010-’11 season, I was very open here about my general apathy (maybe even antipathy) toward Mikhail Grabovski. I saw him as an ex-Hab with some skill, but a guy who was smallish and played that way, and wasn’t particularly gritty or consistent.

Maybe I was way off-base and didn’t give him a fair shot. Fair or not, I put him in my mental player “box”. He was what he was, I figured and I didn’t much like it. I just thought of him as some guy who had an issue with some ex-Montreal teammates whenever he played them. He seemed motivated when he played Montreal, but that was about it. Then last season, I slowly came to see he really was a hard-working player and he slowly won me over with his combination of smart play and steady performance night after night. In fact, I thought he was the guy who should have been the mid-season All-star representative from the Leafs, and I felt he was the team’s MVP a season ago—and said so here.

So yes, opinions can change, for sure. Much like when I was a kid, way back in the 1960s, there were just some Leafs I didn’t really like that much, or didn’t appreciate until I was a bit older and able to appreciate what they had really brought to the club. (I was not, for example, an Eddie Shack guy, though Eddie was wildly popular in both his incarnations as a Maple Leaf. I mostly saw him as an old-fashioned river skater who didn’t really play the Leaf “style”. Or maybe I just didn’t like him, for reasons I can’t even put my finger on. But hey, check out the great old Harold Barkley picture of Eddie "the Entertainer" at left in action in the early 1960s against Ted Green and the Bruins...) Shack could skate, and he scored more than 20 goals in a season a number of times in his career. But he just wasn't a player I ever gravitated to.

It’s like that wonderful old TV episode of “Frasier”. Frasier’s radio show is assessed by one of those “focus groups” and Frasier and his colleagues are allowed (even though they weren’t supposed to) to actually listen to what everyday people had to say about what they liked—or didn’t—about his show. Every person in the focus group had glowing things to say about Frasier and his radio program, except one guy. That fellow was pushed as to why he didn’t like the show. He was reluctant to be forthcoming, but under further nudging from the facilitators hosting the session, eventually said, “Well, I just don’t like him”….

Upon hearing this perceived personal slight, Frasier spent the rest of the episode tracking this poor fellow down to try and discover precisely why the guy didn’t like Frasier. The episode ended with Frasier inadvertently setting the gentleman’s newspaper stand on fire.

So there are times when we just don’t like a certain player. It might be his style of play. Might be that he doesn’t pass the puck enough. Maybe he’s got what we perceive as an attitude of sorts or gives the puck away too much. Whatever.

Through the Quinn years there were always guys I was frustrated with, Robert Reichel being one. Talented guy who played great at International events for his home country but always seemed un-involved with the Leafs. Again, probably not fair but that’s how I perceived him. I was not a fan of Jonas Hoglund, though he was certainly a talented guy. I just wanted to see more effort, I guess—and a few more goals.

I’ll admit a personal bias with the current group. I like Gunnarsson and Kulemin a lot as players. Both are quiet guys who aren’t flashy but generally just go about their business without being noticed too much yet do their jobs well. (Kulemin is not scoring this year, I realize…but hey, I like the guy.) So they’re always on my “players I want to keep as Leafs…” list.

I’m also a Reimer guy, primarily because I like the way he presents himself in public. He seems like a guy not yet caught up in being a star, someone who may (and we’ll see…) be able to maintain his humility in a world that makes it awfully difficult for multi-millionaire (and often pampered) athletes to do just that.

But on the other list, the one with players I’m not as fond of? Hmmm…that’s tougher, because there is no one on the current team that I can honestly say I wish the Leafs would get rid of.

That said, I guess I’m not a huge MacArthur guy. Nice player, but I probably more see what I perceive to be as his less useful traits and focus on things I don’t like about his play. Again, not fair, but a fan’s prerogative, eh?

The other fellow (and I feel like I shouldn’t be admitting this!) is Connolly. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve watched this guy play for years. I remember that the Islanders traded him when he was just a kid to the Sabres. I saw him develop into a solid two-way player. I’ve probably been influenced by the persistent negative talk I was exposed to the last couple of seasons he spent in Buffalo. Many fans were largely dismissive of him, feeling he was no longer a factor and was fading as a player. Of course, there is the injury history, too. That’s no reason not to like somebody, but I probably haven’t quite put out the “welcome wagon” for him as I might have for, say, Milan Lucic if he was suddenly a Leaf. Connolly has played some nice hockey for Toronto. But these things sometimes take time, eh?

Anyway, I’ve put some names out there. Nothing personal. They guys I've mentioned, both past and present were/are good NHL players- just not favourites of mine.

Anyone on the current Leaf team (or from years gone by) you could live (or could have lived) without?

A win is a win; its “value” depends on the next two weeks

2012-01-19T22:30:00.006-05:00

If you haven't visited lately, here are some posts that might be of interest….

Is Schenn worth more to the Leafs or someone else? (Posted in September, let me know if this still applies...)

Do the Leafs have enough team toughness? (My continuing concern...)

The recent Don Cherry comment that created quite a discussion here.

****

The Minnesota Wild and the Ottawa Senators are both a reminder of why premature judgments are often inaccurate.

If we stepped back in time to November, many would have surmised at that point in the NHL season that the Wild were on their way to a shockingly good season. They were atop the Western Conference standings. Their new coach was the latest hockey genius.

The Senators, on the other hand, were struggling to gain some equilibrium after a particularly unsettling start. Yet, also under a new coach, they have now forged a new identity (very different from their "lots of starts, but soft..." make-up of some years ago) as a grit-infested bunch of underdogs who do what it takes to win games. And they have made a significant move in the standings.

The Wild, though, have retreated not only in their overall play, but in the standings. They haven’t played well at home or away from home. Which brings us to the old Harry Neale line, uttered when he was the coach of a poor and struggling struggling Red Wing team in the 1980s (and I paraphrase): “We can’t win at home and we struggle on the road. Our problem is finding a place to play…”.

Despite their poor play in recent weeks, who knows, by March, the Wild may be hot again, eh?

In short, what I’m saying is we, as fans, should probably be ever-cautious in making any dramatic pronouncements, or at least making them too soon. Ottawa and Minnesota are just two teams that show it’s often too early to start naming playoff teams, also-rans or MVP’s, etc. now, much less one month into the season.

I have a similar feeling when watching the Leafs. As a fan base, what I sometimes feel like I’m seeing (and I’m part of it) is we get drawn into thinking that certain guys are worth more than they really are, or playing better than they really are. A guy scores a goal (even if it goes in off his back side) and we start to think, maybe he's playing pretty well after all...

Oh, I know this is a long-time Leaf ‘thing’, that we tend to “over-value” guys who play in Toronto. I suppose it’s that, but it’s a bit more than that, too.

Coming off three losses, we all expected the Leafs would jump out early against Minnesota, as they had earlier in the week against the Sens. The Leafs were at home and playing a team that hasn’t scored much on the road in over a month. And the Leafs did put the petal to the floor.

And he has been a nice player. Short-term euphoria (on the heels of a goal in a game you feel the team needs to win), tends to create more generous than might be realistic assessments of a particular player—or team.

When Kadri and Crabb put the Leafs on the board, it naturally gave fans something to cheer about, and that’s always good. But here’s the thing. Yes, Crabb is a workmanlike third-line player. He works pretty hard, scores some goals and can play the body. He's a nice player.

But for me, that "reaction" is a sign of what ails the franchise. When things go well, and the puck goes in the net (sometimes against pretty mediocre opposition), we take the next step and think, “We can win with these guys…”. And maybe we can. But if we step back and make a hard-edged, sober assessment, the truth is we need more from a lot of guys. More rugged play, more consistency. Smarter play.

And all that is needed against really good teams, more often than not.

Presumably, the Leaf management team takes a much more disciplined approach to all this, and is not "won over" or misled by a win against a team that is reeling.

I continue to believe that the Leafs can make the playoffs in the East, as I posted recently. There is room to move up in the standings, for sure. (Washington and Philly just lost to the Islanders...)

But to be a really good team, to be the kind of team that we all want to see, the truth is that, for all the changes that have already been made, for all the youth, the speed, this is a team with serious flaws, with holes throughout the line-up. The “top-six” isn’t good enough, nor is the “bottom-six”. The defense is young and loaded with talent and potential, but it isn’t yet (and we can’t expect it to be) an elite group, in terms of actual performance.

And the goaltending question is just that, for all of our hopefulness: still a question.

This is not to paint a sour picture. Not at all. It is simply to say this: we should indeed enjoy when Lombardi, for example, scores a goal, as he did against Ottawa. We can hope that a bad goal between the other goalie’s legs (like Lombardi's) means a guy is out of his “slump” or is indeed playing better.

But long-time fans who have seen this familiar movie many times before recognize that wanting it, hoping for it, isn’t enough. Individual players—and a team—have to bring it every night. And even then, you don’t win every night in the NHL.

Over the years, I’ve seen many "improving" Leaf teams play with gusto just often enough to make me think they would be pretty good. And some years they were. But the closest the Leafs have come since 1967 is, as we all know, the semi-finals. And more often than not, the Leaf team in question wasn’t consistent enough to compete with the very best teams in the league when the going got tough- in the playoffs.

So yes, these Leafs look awfully good some nights. Sometimes that’s because they are flying, playing fast and smart and receiving tidy goaltending. Sometimes, though, it’s because the opponent played poorly, or, in the case of Minnesota, just isn’t very good right now.

A win over Minnesota, at least this month, is what it is. Two points—but nothing necessarily more than that. If the Leafs can turn it into something more, then it will have been meaningful. By then, the Leafs may be on the wings of a winning streak, the goaltending will be superb and a playoff spot will look certain.

But even if that were to happen, I would hold back on the celebrations. In the "new" NHL, things change very quickly these days.

What’s the next move with Nazem Kadri?

2012-01-18T22:00:00.002-05:00

We all know, on the surface at least, the “story” with Nazem Kadri since he was drafted by the Maple Leaf organization in the summer of 2009. The talented young forward has made his way into the Leaf line-up on different occasions, only to be returned to the Marlies because of roster limitations, a lack of production, need for further development or injury.

Until recently, I haven’t at all liked how the Leafs have handled his situation, but I won’t go into all the specifics that I’ve outlined in the past yet again. Suffice to say I had hoped he would spend all of last season with the Marlies, so he would be best prepared to make a run for a spot with the big club and stay here this season.

He has been bounced around like a yo-yo, and my strong preference would have been that once he finally earned the call-up, he would be here for good. That hasn't happened.

In any event, he thrived offensively with the Marlies through most of this season, and has shown glimpses (as he also did at times last season, I must say) of being more physical and better all-around in his defensive play when he has played with the big club as well.

I’m glad that Kadri spent prolonged time down on the farm and has has shined for most of the season at that level. And I’m hoping that, with this latest recall, he will indeed never have to go back to the Marlies.

(One only partly-related thought: I wonder how Leaf fans would assess Kadri's play if they just saw him in action for the first time, without knowing he was a high first-round draft choice? I'd love to hear your opinions...)

I still have to wonder, however, if he remains one of the “chips” that Burke has that could help him to acquire something more to his liking when it comes to bulking up on the forward lines—either in terms of size, elite skill or grit—come the stretch drive and (hopefully, for Leaf fans) a playoff push. And I do not say that simply because he was a "healthy scratch" against the Senators on Tuesday night. (I would have thought Kadri, if he played well, would have been useful against the Sens, but the brass clearly felt a bit more thunder and lightning was needed, thus the decision to go with Rosehill...)

Kadri, at 21, is young enough and has shown enough sizzle that many teams would no doubt like to get their hands on a young man with his apparent potential, just as the Leafs did a year ago with Jake Gardiner and Joe Colborne via separate trades. Of course, the best course of action, it is often said, is the trade “you don’t make”, so Burke is no doubt contemplating that avenue (i.e. keeping Kadri in the fold) as well.

(Quick aside: for me, Burke's public comments and protestations mean little. He will do what he believes he needs to do to improve the team now and for the future, and that's his job- regardless of any public suggestions about who's "not going anywhere".)

Here is the present reality: despite the many changes Burke has already made to this roster and the obvious improvement we have witnessed over the past three plus years, more needs to be done—if the Leafs really hope to make big progress sooner than later. And if we realize that, so does Burke. And he’s the one that can do something about it.

While it was a bit of a surprise that he acquired and then dealt Kris Versteeg last season (we generally think of Burke liking “his own” guys), that would suggest Kadri, despite being a Burke draft selection, is not necessarily ensured of a permanent place in Toronto in the future, either. I’ve just had a nagging sense that for all the positive things that have been said about him since the day he was drafted, the brass is not in one hundred per cent agreement that he is a big part of the future here.

Yet, while the roster is deeper, it is not so filled with high-end talent that they will be giving guys away. So we know that in any transaction they do make, they will be reluctant to give away talent or youth.

But to get something, you generally have to give up something, though Burke has engineered a couple of rather remarkable deals in his time in Toronto—moves that cost the team either nothing off the roster, or players who no longer fit here, anyway.

I think they have a decision to make. They can keep getting incrementally better, bit by bit, now already into the fourth year of Burke’s re-construction. (So much for, as I've said here many times, Burke's earlier-stated impatience with a "five-year re-build".) Or they can make another dynamic move to get better more quickly, with an eye toward being serious contenders in 2012-’13, rather than a year or two later than that.

Yes, the Leafs have some nice young talent that will mature even more over the next two years, no question. The defense is young and while flawed, there is a fairly strong core there, as we have discussed here in the past. But Burke is not trading Phaneuf and he’s not moving Gardiner. Who is “touchable”, if anyone, in an effort to get better up front? Schenn? Gunnarsson?

Likely neither, but if I had to pick one, I’m thinking they would move Gunnarsson, though I personally would not, as I’ve posted here before.

So what do they have to deal, who may bring something in return, a trade-able asset who is not on the roster right now?

Kadri.

Many of us believe his name has been on the table many times over the past year or so. The Leafs would never acknowledge that, of course, and they may not even be "offering" him. But he is a piece I believe they would move, if they felt they could get better right now.

This may be a February deal, with a team that is out of the playoff picture who has a veteran that still has two or three years left and can be an impact player next season—when Toronto should be that much closer to contention in the wide open Eastern Conference.

For me, Kadri’s is the name that keeps bubbling up to the surface. If not him, who?

Leaf goaltending is in good hands, just not at the moment

2012-01-17T23:00:00.006-05:00

Being a goalie in that NHL is a tough job, to state the obvious. If you somehow get to that level, you are compensated for your skill and determination spectacularly well but there are, we can agree, less stressful ways to make a living.

When I comment on the performance of a goaltender, I don’t come from a position of expertise about the skills and intricacies of the position. (I never played the position.) Nor do I have detailed knowledge of modern-day statistical formulas that speak a different language than I do, but yes, can help paint the picture when we assess the performance of goaltenders.

I’ve seen hundreds of goalies, good and not so good for many, many years. What I do know is that even “mediocre” NHL goalies can have improbably outstanding runs where it looks like they’ll never let in a goal. I remember Bruce Gamble, a good pro goalie but a journeyman by NHL standards in the mid and late 1960s. Gamble had an amazing streak for the Leafs during the 1965-’66 season, I think it was. (See the great old Harold Barkley photo of Gamble at left, with teammate Mike Walton.) He popped three or four shutouts in a row and looked phenomenal. The bubble then burst and Gamble gave up 7 goals, I think it was, against the Habs one night. He had a nice career with the Leafs before being traded with Walton during the 1970-’71 season, but never recaptured the stunning success he had in that shutout streak. Who could?

Roger Crozier, the left-handed, very talented, acrobatic and then very young Red Wing goalie played two of the best games I’ve ever seen a goalie play in the spring of 1966. Crozier, who was a Glenn Hall butterfly ‘keeper (he’d fit in with today’s drop-down style) flustered and frustrated the powerful Montreal Canadiens right in Montreal as Detroit won the first two games of the finals against the defending Stanley Cup champions. It looked like the Wings had the series in the bag. (Crozier is shown at right looking back in the net after an Yvan Cournoyer marker...) But while he was good the rest of the series (while also fighting through an injury), he could not maintain his amazing earlier display. The Wings lost in six games as the Habs steamrolled to their second consecutive Cup.

Heck, J.S. Giguere, a fine goalie but not a Hall-of-Famer, sure looked all-world during that incredible Ducks playoff run in 2003. He was so “in the zone”, so focused, so on his game that he really and truly looked like he couldn’t be beat. He was so consistently square to the shooters that only a fluke or an absolutely perfect shot could have beat him. Giguere has had a good career, including a Cup, but no one can play like he did in those playoffs throughout their career. It’s just not possible.

But my point is simply this: all talented, NHL-level goalies are capable of really good streaks. They are also capable of losing their confidence very quickly and looking not so good at all.

The great ones generally have longer periods of excellence and shorter periods of being lousy. But even some of the best will have entire seasons (look at Ryan Miller’s career…good year, OK year, great year, poor year, etc.) where they aren’t themselves, or what they generally can be.

So why do I mention all this? Well, as we speak, the Leafs are without a game-stealing goaltender. Oh, I know The Monster had some pretty solid games not long ago when the Leafs won four in a row, and off and on prior to that mini-run. And Reimer was pretty good right out of the chute this season until he was hurt. But if we’re honest, really honest, the Leaf brass clearly was not confident in Gustavsson early this season. This was evident when Burke basically said Gus was probably better off and more comfortable not being a number-one. (It’s been clear from the get-go, as I have said here many times, that they want Reimer to be the guy…)

Now, I realize Gustavsson has had some fine games. And I like him a lot, as I’ve also posted here a number of times. But the team also often scored a lot to give him nice cushions in some of those winning efforts.

I really like Reimer, too, who I believe is going to be a good NHL goaltender.

But it’s obvious Reimer, post-injury, is not yet the guy we saw most of the time in the second half of the 2010-’11 season. He makes some big saves, but we expect that of NHL goaltenders. What separates the goalies at that level is consistency and their ability to minimize the number of bad goals which can kill your team’s confidence.

Throw in the ability to make some timely saves when you are either a goal ahead of a goal behind and you’ve got a good NHL goalie, maybe even better than that.

That last point is something that Reimer did so well a year ago—he generally kept his team ahead when they held a lead late in the game, and gave the Leafs a chance to come back when they were behind by a goal or two.

But right now, Wilson is in an unenviable position. To show just how quickly things can change, we have moved from what some were seeing as a goaltending controversy (because Wilson had to choose between two goaltenders playing pretty well), to a situation where he has to decide which of two guys who are just playing OK should be in net on Thursday night against the Wild.

I remember writing last season, before Reimer arrived, that one of the Leaf goalies would have to start stealing some games. In the end, Reimer was the guy who stole some games, but we all remember that it wasn’t quite enough to save what had been an uneven first-half.

Now, we need to see that kind of goaltending again. Doesn’t matter who—Reimer, Gustavsson, Scrivens, Johnny Bower. The Leafs are an improving team, but an imperfect one. They can score a flood of goals, but can also suddenly go cold. They can play good defense, but still make a lot of coverage mistakes and turn the puck over in the neutral zone—like most every other team in the league.

No team is perfect. The Leafs fit in nicely. So what do they need, given some inconsistency in other aspects of their game?

They need their goalies to not only win the games they should have won (like Tuesday night at home against the Sens) and, as importantly, steal games they maybe had no business winning.

If not, everyone’s collar is going to get a lot tighter in the days ahead, as other teams step up the pace—and the race for playoff spots in the East is even more heated.

Nothing is guaranteed. Hey, Washington lost to the Islanders. But you don’t want to miss too many opportunities to jump in the standings. You never get back the points you lost.

The Leafs and the last playoff spot: 8th place by default?

2012-01-16T22:00:00.004-05:00

While it’s a pretty low bar, making the playoffs is still something to reach for if you’re a fan of the Maple Leafs. It is 8 seasons since the last time the Leafs even suited up for a playoff game, so it would be something to at least get to that next step in the organization’s continued development curve.

We can all agree the Leafs under Burke have made strides. They are faster, deeper and simply better. But they still—as I’ve posted here before—in my eyes at least, lack (in addition to some necessary personnel upgrades) the required team toughness to get to the level they need to be at to be successful in the playoffs.

But for now, the question is: will the Leafs even be there?

Ron Wilson has been encouraging his charges to look ahead at the teams they want to catch in the standings, rather than focus on feeling pressure from the teams chasing them from behind. That’s a perfectly fine motivational ploy that I happen to endorse. I’d rather my team be the chaser, be the one putting the pressure on somebody else who is seeing the rope slip out of their hands, than be worried about getting caught from behind. We’ll see if that mentality works for Wilson and the Leafs.

As we sit right now, there is perhaps a bit more clarity around the playoff picture and possible standings/positioning, as we move toward the 50 games played mark. Potential playoff seeding is a lot harder to put our finger on. On any given day, the Leafs hover between 5th and 9th overall in the standings. Win two and you’re “in” (at least on paper, for the moment). Lose two and you’re “out”, it seems.

I wrote a few weeks back about who the Leafs, in my estimation, were really and truly in a fight with for a playoff berth in the Eastern Conference. My thinking at the time was that five teams were in for sure—Boston, New York, Philly, Washington and Pittsburgh. Various things, including injuries, have conspired to make the Penguins/Cap situation a little less certain, but I have to believe those five teams will still be there in April.

I ventured out far enough on a limb to suggest the Isles, Canes and Lightning were going nowhere this season, and that while Ottawa was way better than I thought they would be, I would be shocked if they lasted long enough to make the playoffs. (I still think that’s the case, but they will make me look very, very bad if they keep up their determined play…)

That left Montreal, Winnipeg, New Jersey, Toronto, Florida and Buffalo to fight for the three remaining spots, as I assessed the possibilities at the time.

Acknowledging that things can change in a hurry (injuries, a hot goalie, etc.) I think we have to put the Habs on the list of teams on their deathbed. Dysfunction is an over-used term, but it somehow seems to apply to a team that just isn’t going anywhere. Gauthier continues to make moves that don’t necessarily defy logic, but also don’t seem to be making things any better.

So I think we can safely say that, as of this moment, while Carolina, Montreal, Tampa Bay and the Islanders may have their moments they will not be making the playoffs this spring.

I still think the Senators will fade, despite an impressive display of what I sense is playing over their head. (This is not to discredit the team’s achievements so far under their first-year head coach. It’s simply my view at this point in the season…I may well be proven wrong.) But they are right in the mix, for now.

So on my “list”, we have the above teams that I think for sure won’t make it (Islanders, Carolina, Tampa Bay and Montreal). Plus, I’m going to throw in Winnipeg. I love some of the young talent there, but I don’t think they have the veteran leadership, proven guys who can lead them through tough times and help them pick up their chins—and their boot straps—when the going gets tough. I also think the Sabres are done like dinner (as Tiger Williams so famously said about the Flyers that fateful playoff night in the spring of 1977). I just believe that nothing in the NHL lasts forever, and it’s time for owner Terry Pegula to clean house and bring in a new General Manager and a new voice for the dressing room. Ruff has been there an awful long time.

So for me, that’s six teams who won’t be there, and five teams who will be there for sure. That’s 11 teams “spoken for”, in my view.

Ottawa has me confused. They're the wild card.

That means that, the rest of the way, the 6-7-8 playoff spots will be between New Jersey, Florida and of course Toronto (we hope…) and maybe Ottawa.

So by my own descriptions above, Toronto should be in. I don’t see Florida maintaining their first-half pace and while the Devils are better than I thought, they could do a swan dive as well. So while this is hardly a bold prediction and certainly not a proclamation, I think that (to a certain extent by the age-old process of simple elimination) the Leafs should be in the “top 8” come April.

As I’ve opined here many times, the East is not a particularly strong conference. It may be the salary cap, it may be parity, it may be a number of things, but I think because of that, it’s almost a toss-up again come playoff time with regard to who will ultimately advance from the East. Yes, Boston looks good right now and they have the confidence of having won in the spring—and that should only help them. They are the likely “favorites”. But are they truly unbeatable? The Rangers are good but again, not so good that they can't be beat. And I believe every other team can be taken out in a playoff series. Things can go your way—or slip away—very suddenly.

Whether the Leafs are one of the teams that can take advantage of any slippage, well, we’re still a ways from finding out. They have some problems of their own to deal with just to get to the dance.

Don Cherry’s comment on the Leaf coaches: where do you stand?

2012-01-15T21:00:00.012-05:00

Everyone is busy and readers who drop by on occasion may miss some posts they might otherwise have checked out. Just in case, here are some that you might be interested in:

A column on the coaching/language question in Montreal- from my perspective as someone with a French (though not from Quebec) background

Dion Phaneuf and the captain’s legacy in Toronto

The Leafs and Getzlaf or Bobby Ryan

Father and son hockey disputes

The Wilson contract extension

When a trade sends your favorite Leaf away

It came and went in a flash. In fact, I’m guessing because the CBC was rushing to give Don his few final seconds of air time for the night—before throwing to the Calgary-Kings HNIC nightcap—that the audience was much smaller than it is for, say, “Coach’s Corner”.

But what was said was intended, very direct, and for some, likely hit the nail on the head.

Here is what happened (and someone please correct me if I have the sequence wrong): It was Armed Forces Night at the ACC, a terrific initiative on the part of the Leafs and Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. During the Leaf-Ranger contest, and after his customary appearance on “Coach’s Corner”, Don Cherry (with permission, obviously) stopped the game in the third period, I think it was, and led a cheer from the stands for the armed forces on hand, while also thanking the Leafs for hosting the evening. Fans in the building gave another nice cheer (as they had earlier in the evening), and players on each team stood and acknowledged the military men and women on hand by tapping their sticks on the boards.

It was a nice moment, for sure.

Now, fast forward to the moment I referred to above. Don is making his final “comment” of the evening. He again salutes the Leafs for doing a great job hosting the armed forces and celebrating their (the troops, not MLSE) remarkable efforts on behalf of all Canadians. He then closes by verbally tipping his hat to Maple Leaf assistant coach Rob Zettler, as Don put it, “a good Canadian boy” who applauded during Cherry’s live announcement, along with the fans and the players from both teams.

Don then went on to add, very quickly but quite intentionally, that (and I am not quoting directly- someone may have the footage on tape and can provide the accurate statement) the other Leaf coaches “couldn’t have cared less” about the announcement and didn’t even bother to applaud to acknowledge the troops.

We all know about Don’s outward and very public support of Canadian troops over the years, and for all those policeman and firefighters who are out there there to serve and protect the rest of us in the line of duty. He has also at various times poked at Ron Wilson (as I have in this space over the years, and I believe fairly so) for what Don, at least in the past, perceived as a somewhat arrogant attitude on Wilson’s part. (He occasionally disagrees with Wilson’s coaching tactics and personnel decisions, too, but that’s a debate for another day…)

But here’s my question: do you agree with Cherry? Do you believe the Leaf coaches who did not applaud (if they in fact did not, I can’t verify…I wasn’t on hand and I don't know for certain) were in effect slighting the troops? Was it disrespectful, even if it was un-intentional?

Here’s the thing. You have to believe Wilson and his staff, at that point in a still close game (I think the Leafs were down 2-0 to the Rangers at that point) were focused first and foremost (and only, frankly) on how they could get the guys going to get back in the game. As a coach, you have tons of stuff on your mind in the middle of a close game.

But that all said, was Cherry on to something?

He made a point of mentioning Zettler’s Canadian nationality, didn’t he? We all know the Leafs are pretty top-heavy, organizationally and in terms of their coaching staff, with Americans. I don’t know if this troubles Cherry, or any of you. I don’t particularly care, to be honest, though I will say this: I’m not sure if I would be one hundred per cent thrilled if the entire playing roster was made up of Americans or Europeans.

I don’t know if that makes me narrow-minded, biased or just wrong-headed. By the way, as many of you will know, two of my favorite Leafs are Kulemin and Gunnarsson. I’m just not sure I’d be excited if there were no Canadians on the team at all, given the club’s history as a Canadian-based franchise- and one with proud roots in this country. After all, the team’s important legacy was built on the skill and efforts of great players like Syl Apps, Ted Kennedy, Johnny Bower (shown at left in early 1960s action against the Rangers at the old Madison Square Garden), Tim Horton, Dickie Duff and George Armstrong (who was a Native Canadian, as I recall).

There is no question that, for example, Borje Salming and Inge Hammarstrom were pioneers and triggered, at least in Toronto, a wave of future Europeans who graced the blue and white uniform and only enhanced the organization’s great hockey heritage. And some fine American players have worn the blue and white colors proudly as well (Ed Olczyk, among others, jumps to mind…heck, Ron Wilson himself played for the Leafs in 1979 or thereabouts). And that’s how it should be, a wonderful mix of the best players available—from everywhere.

I’d just like to ensure that there is also room in Toronto for some Canadian players as well, I suppose. That’s just how I feel. Not to the exclusion of opportunities for others, just as part of the Leaf tradition in Canada.

But I am digressing somewhat. The real question today is, how do you feel about Cherry’s comment at the end of the Leaf game on Saturday night? Was he right on? Was he off-base? Did you agree with him or not? Was it unfair of him to expect the coaches to stop what they were doing and applaud the troops?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The Franson/Gardiner discussion

2012-01-14T23:00:00.004-05:00

Unless we thought the Leafs were never going to lose again, we should not be shocked at the back-to-back losses this weekend. After a nice run of four wins, they went on the road to face a hungry (albeit struggling) Buffalo team. We all know that’s not been the kindest place for the Leafs to play over the last…well almost forever, actually.

As for the Rangers, yes, they started Biron, which should have favored the Leafs, but you just knew New York would be up after playing poorly in their previous game, a 3-0 loss. Let’s face it. Right now (and yes, things can definitely change over the next two months) Boston and the Rangers are the class of the Eastern Conference. Both are skilled, smart, well-coached teams that can grind and are hard to play against. There isn’t a lot of open ice most nights when you play either of those squads. And if you're willing to go to those spaces, you might get run over, anyway.

So the Leafs came up short against a good team, which will happen sometimes. Not to over analyze one game in isolation, or suggest the Rangers (who have struggled previously this season against the Leafs) have now found the key to slowing the Leafs down. But they did what I would try to have my team do if I was playing the Leafs in a playoff series—be physical against Kessel and crowd him because he needs room to be effective. Do everything you can to take the Leaf top line out of the game, and then outwork the rest of Toronto's units, who can be spotty sometimes in their execution and intensity.

It worked for the Rangers Saturday night.

I expect Reimer to get back in against the Senators. I get the feeling that every game will feel like a mini-playoff game from here on in. That's how tight the standings are in the East...

Within every NHL season—and certainly within every team’s up and downs—there are dozens of “story lines” that we, as fans, can pay attention to. The Leafs are no exception. In fact, Leaf fans may parse more things—daily practice notes, line combinations, possible trades, the minor league team’s progress and much more—than fans of any other franchise in hockey, save possibly the Montreal Canadiens.

Just off the top of my head, there have been a number of interesting little issues already this season in Leafland. Among them:

should Kadri be with the Marlies or the Leafs? (Some fans love that he’s with the big club now, but that assessment could change depending on his performance. As I’ve posted here before, I felt he should have spent all of last season with the Marlies. I just don’t want him to continue to be a yo-yo. Let the kid play a lot—somewhere, to get better.)
Is Wilson the right man to be the coach of this particular Leaf team? (His mini-extension quelled some talk, but the Leafs need to make the playoffs at a minimum, I would think, for Wilson to stay on the job…)
Who’s the number-one goalie? It was Reimer, clearly. And that’s very much what the Leaf brass and coaching staff wanted. But an untimely injury set the young goalie back, and Gustavsson—after some nervous fits and starts (and some confidence issues)—has righted his own personal ship, at least to some extent.
Can Connolly be a number-one center? (We’re starting to have a sample-size that is giving us a clue. But I’ll save that discussion/debate for another post.)
How can a team’s penalty-kill be this bad four years running?

And that’s just a small example of the day-to-day talking points around the Leafs this season. But the interesting situation that is evolving for me right now involves the sudden prominence of former Predator defenseman Cody Franson as a significant member of the blue and white.

We all remember how the season started—with the almost shocking emergence of first-year pro Jake Gardiner as one of the first six Maple Leaf blueliners. His spirited pre-season performance—a nice blend of skating ability, poise and hockey smarts—earned him instant playing time on a team that already had an abundance of NHL-experienced rearguards. But the decision to start him with the big team meant a demotion for Keith Aulie, who had himself shown some good things a year ago when he was called up from the Marlies.

But more controversial, at least for me, was the choice of Gardiner over Franson, who just a few months prior was a key performer for the Nashville Predators in the playoffs against some of the best teams in the tough Western Conference. Not surprisingly, Franson was none too pleased with his seat in the press box. His coach was just as displeased when Franson was not shy about expressing his frustration publicly.

This set off a chain of events whereby Gardiner was opening eyes almost every night and Franson was (at best) being spotted in and out of the line-up and playing modest minutes when he was in. But over the past six weeks, while we can hardly say Gardiner’s play has deteriorated, it would not be a surprise if the young man is hitting a small wall, given he is accustomed to playing a U.S. college schedule. At the same time, Franson has, most nights, become more and more comfortable in a Leaf uniform. He is now a “regular” in the Leaf blueline mix, playing significant minutes while getting some time on the Leaf power play unit. His physical play has surprised some, as he came to town as a guy known for bringing some offense, a big shot and size—but not necessarily for particularly aggressive play.

Bottom line, he has been mostly solid. And with Komisarek—an experienced, big ticket defenseman back from the injured list—Schenn, Phaneuf and Gunnarsson all permanent fixtures in the Leaf picture, it leaves Aulie and Gardiner vying for the 6^th and final regular spot on the back end.

At the moment, and maybe it is just for the moment, Aulie has been occupying the spot.

As I mentioned in this space early in the season when this was all unfolding and there was talk of Franson being traded, things can change quickly. It’s a long season. And things have indeed changed. Gardiner is watching and while the loss Saturday night against the Rangers may see Gardiner re-inserted into the line-up (that would be my guess) on Tuesday, before long the Leafs will ultimately have to do something, roster-wise, especially if Liles regains his health.

I had written here many times early in the season that, even though Gardiner looked great in pre-season and clearly has NHL skill, given that Toronto had/has so many defensemen, I would have liked to see him develop and play a lot with the Marlies. But he received tons of playing time here, and some nights was one of the better Leafs. So maybe, as I acknowledged here not that long ago, I was wrong about the Leaf decision to keep Gardiner.

That said, it will be frustrating if they were to decide to demote him now. I would much rather that a kid play with the Marlies and not go back and forth unless absolutely necessary (emergency situations, injuries, etc.). I like to see a guy so well “cooked” at the AHL level he never has to go back.

Once you have been up with the big club for this long, as Gardiner has, it’s hard to go back, though it hasn’t seemed to hurt Del Zotto with the Rangers, who was a stud rookie at 19 and spent a chunk of his sophomore year in the minors before rebounding so nicely this season.

In retrospect, maybe the Leafs knew what they were doing with Franson. That is, perhaps they saw that he needed a jolt upon arriving him at camp. He certainly has some fire in his game now and maybe they thought that was missing when he arrived.

As for Gardiner, I hope the Leafs’ handling of Franson doesn’t end up harming his development. But he should be just fine. With that talent and his calm manner, he will be a player here for a long time.

As talk around Luke Schenn swirls, going through that adjustment when your favorite Leaf leaves town

2012-01-13T23:00:00.011-05:00

The Leafs weren't exactly at their very best Friday night, but they did bounce back from an early 2-0 deficit in Buffalo. Grabovski continued his relatively torrid offensive pace of late, and Crabb scored on the road yet again.

A positive to take away was that Gustavsson made some "gotta see that again" saves in the third period while the Leafs were fighting to tie things up. That's the trait that served Reimer so well through much of the second half of last season- the ability to make big saves to keep your team in the game when you're behind.

Not a great night but no reason for concern.

***

And a quick aside: for those who might have missed yesterday's post on how relationships between father and son can go off the rails over something as simple as a hockey game (or if you liked Bobby Orr), click here...

***

It’s always interesting to follow the Twitter hockey chat, particularly when it’s in reference to the Leafs and the things that the team may—or may not—do when it comes to player moves.

I posted here recently that I really, really hoped that Carl Gunnarsson would not be a part of any trade that Burke might make. He wasn't at his best, maybe, on Friday night in Buffalo, but I just think the guy is a fine defenseman—smart, moves the puck. We don't necessarily notice him most of the time because he is a good, quietly effective player.

Now that’s all very nice on my part, but I have about as much impact on whether the young defenseman gets traded as I have on whether the sun comes up tomorrow morning, which is to say, none at all. But that’s how I feel and what I’d like to see happen. I just have no say in the matter.

That's how many Leaf supporters feel right now about Luke Schenn. They don't want him to be part of any big trades. Brian Burke went so far as to deny Schenn was being offered (though, as we know, there can be a subtle difference between "being offered" and "being discussed"....).

As fans, we all have a right to our thoughts and opinions, and part of the enjoyment in being a fan of a particular team, whether it’s the Leafs or any side in any sport, is that we bring, with that devotion, other little, let’s call them…peculiarities. We may like certain players more than others. (Some fans may even get a little obsessed, in a healthy hockey kind of way.) Most of us have “favorites”. It’s natural. It may make us a bit happier, say, when certain player score a goal, or makes a big save, if we are somewhat emotionally invested in their success.

You always hate to see certain players go. I remember when Frank Mahovlich was traded in February of 1968, not even a full year after the Leafs won their last Cup. (And I don’t mean their last Cup in that run of 4 Cups in the 1960s. I mean their last Cup, period…)

I admired Mahovlich (left) but was not a died-in-the-wool Mahovlich guy, so while I remember the deal like it was yesterday—because it was a mammoth trade in hockey history and especially for we Leaf fans back then—I wasn’t personally bent out of shape. I still loved the Leafs and just wanted to see the guys that came back from Detroit (Normie Ullman, Floy Smith and Paul Henderson) help get the team playing better. And they pretty much did.

But for some Leaf followers, it was a betrayal, enough to make them turn their backs on their favorite team.

I was sad, for example, when Jim Dorey was traded during the 1971-’72 season. I liked Dorey a lot as part of a then young and talented corps of defensemen (Rick Ley, Brian Glennie, Brad Selwood, Mike Pelyk, Jim McKenny, etc.) that I figured would only get better. But General Manager Jim Gregory needed a bit more scoring, so he moved Dorey for a Ranger who might add some goals to the roster. (Pierre Jarry, I think it was…)

But my real personal Alamo when it came to losing a “favorite” was when owner Harold Ballard had no interest in re-signing then long-time captain Dave Keon in the summer of 1975. Keon had been with the Leafs for 15 mostly distinguished seasons. He was no longer the player he had been, and there were references to some un-spoken off-ice issues that were raised at times in the Toronto media. But to not offer a guy who had been an absolute fan- favorite Leaf a contract was a slap in the face to Keon—and to a lot of us fans.

But Ballard didn’t care. Keon (right) had to go to the World Hockey Association to continue his career. (He had no freedom to sign with another NHL team, as the Leafs still “owned” and thus protected his rights…)

My biggest link to the Leafs was gone. But life was going on and so were the Leafs, whether I was on board or not. Lanny McDonald was next up as my favorite Maple Leaf. Sentiment could only take a fan (me) so far.

I know it was very hard for a lot of people when Darryl Sittler’s relationship with Ballard and the Leafs deteriorated in the early 1980s. Sittler, a well-respected captain, like Keon before him, eventually was traded to (of all teams) the hated Flyers. But if you loved the Leafs, well, the team was always more than one guy, and you either switched allegiances or stayed with the blue and white.

Some Leaf followers might have left the building after Sittler was traded, I’m not really certain. For people like me, “switching” was never an option, I guess, so that was off the table.

I’m sure some Leaf fans were crestfallen when Wendel Clark (left) was dealt by Cliff Fletcher in the summer of 1994. The Leafs had just come off two consecutive “final-four” appearances in the NHL playoffs. But Fletcher felt the Leafs—as they were constituted at the time—if they were going to reach the next level, needed a makeover. So off went Wendel. (Sundin turned out to be a marvelous addition for more than a decade, but Fletcher wasn’t around long enough to see his team ever reach those- relatively speaking- giddy heights again.

So I really understand when I hear people say, “I hope they don’t move Luke Schenn….” or “”I’ll be really ticked if Kadri is included in any deal…”. I get it. We become attached to these guys, albeit from a distance, and because we care about the team and their successes give us pleasure, we want that to continue. And we want our favorite players to be part of it. I like Gunnarsson. You may like Schenn. Maybe someone else loves Gustavsson. The next guy is all about Reimer. It's all good.

The reality is, when a deal is made and a player we “care” about is dealt, a little piece of what we love about the Leafs does leave. It’s just the way it is.

But on most cases, we lick our wounds, get ticked, but come back to the fold. It’s in our blood. As people like to say, the name on the front of the jersey means more than the name on the back.

So it is forever “Go Leafs Go”, while we wish only good things for the favorite who left us.

Bobby Orr, Pat Quinn and father and son hockey disputes- Have you ever had one?

2012-01-12T21:00:00.002-05:00

Those who remember the early days of Vintage Leaf Memories will know a bit about my own hockey lineage. That is, that I was born into a family of devoted (devout is a better word, actually) Montreal Canadiens’ fans. My Dad was so passionate, the link extended past hockey to his cultural and religious background.

It was intense, and not always healthy, I don’t think—and I’ll leave it at that.

But beyond that one area of disagreement between Dad and myself (my support for the Leafs was clear but the intense dislike I had for the Habs was never really addressed openly within the family), we generally enjoyed watching hockey together—for the most part. I talked too much for his liking, but we spent a lot of time watching Leaf and Red Wing games together. (We lived across from Detroit, and a local UHF station carried Red Wing "away" games.)

Like in the rest of life, we all make accommodations to maintain positive relationships. For example, Dad hated Gordie Howe (and little Gordie did was appreciated in Dad’s eyes) but I tried not to cross him on that one. It would have been a no-win for a man who dedicated much of his rooting life to the Habs and in particular Howe’s greatest rival, Maurice Richard. I did not want to find my way completely out of Dad’s will.

In any event, the cold war was always “out there” in our relationship, though I tried to steer clear of specifics that I knew could set off a chain reaction. He knew I loved the Leafs and we left each other alone in that regard. When the two teams played each other, especially in the playoffs, if the game was on television (since we lived so close to Detroit, a lot of Hockey Night in Canada games in the 1960s were actually blacked out in our area when the Wings were playing at home), we usually watched (or listened on the radio) in different rooms.

It’s just the way it had to be, to stay civil.

But I well recall one time that we had actually had a spat, and it had nothing to do with the Canadiens. You see, Dad loved Bobby Orr (seen at right in his junior days in Oshawa, with the Generals...). To be clear, Dad was no fan of the Bruins. But before Bobby joined the team at the age of 18 in time for the 1966-’67 NHL season (the last one before the league expanded to 12 teams), the Bruins were a last-place team and had been for half a dozen years. There was nothing to hate. Dad really appreciated the way Orr played the game—hard and fast—very, very fast. Orr was also the smartest guy on skates, which Dad also appreciated He liked everything that Orr did.

Like most hockey fans of the era, he was not as impressed with the Bruins when they became good enough to take on the Habs, especially when Boston became the often dirty “Big Bad Bruins” and set all kinds of scoring records. But he still loved Orr.

In any event, some of you will remember that, after winning the Stanley Cup in a major upset in the spring of 1967, the Leafs quickly went into a spiral. They missed the playoffs the very next season (the first year of expansion) and they just managed to make the playoffs in the spring of 1969. Their first-round opponent was the Bruins, who were building a formidable team that would go on to twin two Cups over the next three seasons—and by all rights, should have won more with a bit more discipline and a little less arrogance in the early 1970s.

In the spring of ’69, Orr was already in his prime as the best player in the game at the age of 20, maybe 21. The Bruins toyed with the Leafs in the first two games of the playoffs in Boston, hammering them by a score of 10-0 in game 1, and 7-0 in the second game at the cramped Boston Garden before a blood-thirsty crowd.

I say blood-thirsty because Boston fans were reveling in those days in the Bruins’ resurgence. The Bruins were anchored by former Leaf Gerry Cheevers in goal. They had Orr, and of course the Chicago trio acquired in a famous trade—Phil Esposito, Ken Hodge and Freddie Stanfield. Throw in Teddy Green and Don Awrey on defense, the young and nasty Derek Sanderson, the classy veteran Johnny Bucyk and fireballs like Johnny McKenzie and you had an awfully good—and tough—team.

So as the Leafs were playing out the first game of the series in embarrassing fashion; it was the third period and Orr was absolutely free-wheeling. He took the puck behind his net, coming out on the goalie’s right-hand side as he liked to do. Just as he was generating some speed (and he could fly) Leaf defenseman, big Pat Quinn, a tough hombre in those days, saw Orr was picking up steam—and made his move.

Quinn (seen at left in action with the Leafs, in a wonderful Harold Barkley photo, with Jean Beliveau in pursuit at the old Forum...) absolutely crunched Orr with a staggering blow inside the Boston blueline. Orr was, if I’m not mistaken, not only knocked down but briefly knocked out.

I was watching the game at the house of an old grade-school chum (I was 15 and in high school in April of 1969). Like millions of Canadian viewers, I saw the brawls that ensued…Quinn being led out of the building because fans were trying to get at him. It was a mess. There were so many fights that night it was unbelievable. The Bruins were “standing up” for Orr and the Leafs tried to fight back, as best they could, though other than another old favorite of mine, Jim Dorey, (and Quinn) they didn’t have a lot of team toughness that season. Their forwards were awfully small.

(An interesting aside: the very next season, in a game at Maple Leaf Gardens, Quinn nailed Orr was another open-ice hit in the neutral zone. It was not as spectacular as the earlier hit, but still a big blow. Nothing came of it, as I recall...)

In any event, Dad had been watching the game by himself at home. He picked me up at my buddy’s house and on the way home, started to talk about the game. He started going after Quinn for hitting Orr with a ‘dirty’ check. (I’ve always believed he was reacting because initially it looked like Orr was really hurt seriously…) But Dad was giving me grief as though I had done something just because it was a Leaf player who had hit Orr.

It was guilt by association, I guess.

Well, I was pretty ticked myself. The Leafs had just been humiliated and I was in no mood for a “talking to” just because one of “my” guys had dared to touch the great Bobby Orr. So I simply said, “It was a clean check. He hit him with his shoulder…”

I got out of the car, slammed the door and went inside.

We never spoke of the incident again.

To this day (and as I’ve acknowledged here before, it so happens that, ironically, I developed a personal and professional relationship with Pat Quinn many years later, and he is someone I think most highly of) I feel the hit on Orr was a clean one, by the criteria of any era.

The allegation at the time—and supposedly the reason he was given a major penalty—was that he intended to hurt Orr and threw an elbow. In fact (and I’ve seen the play dozens of time on film since), as I see it, Quinn hit Orr in the head (Orr was skating low, it would have been impossible not to hit him in the head…) with his arm…that area between the shoulder and the elbow.

Yes, his elbow came flying up as a reflex action to—and extension of—the hit, but it was not an “elbow” to the head, as many wanted to believe at the time.

In any event, what I really wanted to ask today was, have any of you ever had that awkward experience of being at odds with your dad over a matter as trivial as something that happened in a sporting event?

It always struck me as odd, though peculiarly like my family, that Dad and I would fence over the Orr hit. (Clearly, it’s never just about the top of the toothpaste cap being left off that ticks the other party off; there were bigger issues brewing between us…)

I’d love to hear from you. This could be fun….

Phaneuf over-rated? Let’s not lose our heads…..

2012-01-11T21:30:00.003-05:00

Sports Illustrated has been around forever. (Well, not really forever...more like since the early to mid-1950s, I believe, but don’t depend on my memory on this one…)

I actually remember the first time I was able to get a subscription to Sports Illustrated. It was exciting. I was maybe 12 year-old. I used to read sports magazines (Sport magazine, Hockey Illustrated, etc.) rather voraciously as a youngster—at least as many as my Dad could afford to buy for me. In addition to my baseball and hockey card addiction, Dad, a man of very modest means (and with four other, older children—most headed toward or already embarked on/upon an expensive university education) loved sports, so he encouraged my interest.

It wasn’t exactly deep or heavy reading, but it kept me somewhat in the “know” about the teams and players I liked—the Packers, the Chicago White Sox (a story for another day) and of course, the Leafs.

In any event, I never threw the magazines out, or at least my mom thought that. I was a pack rat like my Dad and kept just about everything. One day I was reading through a magazine from years earlier and saw an ad for Sports Illustrated. It was one of those old-style “tear-out” subscription cards. I remember the price like it was yesterday: 27 issues for $1.97. ( No tax or anything in those days.) I sent out the little postcard-type subscription cut-out in the mail, which probably cost me two or three cents in those days. I must have used an envelope because I managed to locate one dollar and ninety-seven cents. To be honest, I don’t recall if I just plunked a bunch of loose change in the envelope, or my mother gave me a cheque to cover the cost. I’m pretty sure it was loose change.

I didn’t know if Sports Illustrated would even “honor” the rate offered, because the card was many years old. (By the way, after all these years, I still don’t know whether I should spell words like honor with a “u” or not. I’m Canadian but was born right across from Detroit. Canadians and Americans spell it differently, right?)

Lo and behold, my first magazine came in the mail a few weeks later. I felt like I had won something—27 issues for les than two dollars! I was Warren Buffett in the making, eh?

An aside: the first “cover” I got in the mail was in black and white, in the spring of either 1965 or ’66. I say that because I remember that Gail Goodrich of UCLA was on the cover against Michigan (an action photo) in the NCAA college basketball championship game. I think it was ’65….

But this all brings me to (I know, my stories are rarely short…) a piece which came out Wednesday, citing an NHL players poll about the most “overrated” players in the league.

Who was at the top of the list? Our own beloved Dion Phaneuf.

My own reaction was that I was nonplussed. Heck, if you had asked me before this season started, I’d have a hard-time arguing that Phaneuf wasn’t just living off his NHL (end-of-season, when it matters) All-Star year back in ’07, I think it was. He was just OK last year, though injury played a role. He wasn’t outstanding his last couple of seasons in Calgary. With Toronto a season ago, he was a risk-taking, and often risk-losing, defenseman.

This year he is still in love with jumping into the play, but that is what the coaches seem to want, and more often than not he is still handling the requisite responsibilities in his own end as well. He doesn’t run after guys as often, at least that’s how it seems to me.

So, while I’m not sure he is playing like he is “the best in the league”, as Wilson loudly opined in the early days of the current season, he is a leader in terms of attitude, effort, ice-time and production on a Leaf time that has surprised a few people.

So Phaneuf probably was over-rated the last few years. He still may not be an end-of-season All-Star defenseman, but he’s probably not far off the list. If he’s still overrated, it’s likely because he was rated far too high in the first place. He is a good hockey player, thriving in a tough market.

It is interesting, though, that some players did say he was over-rated. We generally tend to believe players on other issues more than say, media people who follow teams, so we can’t just discount what players say. But I’d like to know exactly when the “poll” was done, how many guys were asked (I just checked—161) and how many of those questioned actually face him regularly. It’s hard not to believe a player like Phaneuf isn’t disliked by a number of opposing players, which might tilt the opinions, as well.

For his part, Brian Burke was on the radio shortly after the SI story "broke" and defended Dion, as any GM would.

In any event, Phaneuf is in good company on the list. Here are the rest of the names from the SI poll:

Dion Phaneuf
Alex Ovechkin—I won’t debate this one. I thought he was the most exciting thing on skates three years ago, with his mad dashes, highlight-reel skills and his pugnacious, somewhat audacious physicality. But while he is still that guy some nights, numbers don’t completely lie.
Scott Gomez—I’ll let those who still hate the Habs, and Gomez, fill in their own thoughts.
Roberto Luongo—Those who follow here will already know my views on Luongo. And until he delivers a consistently stellar playoff performance, they will remain the same—regardless of what he ever does in the regular season. You want to be paid like the best, as he had insisted before he signed his last contract? You have to be the best.
Dany Heatley-Fill in your punch-line here. I’ve disliked this player for many years.
Kovalchuk—I still love watching him play, but no one is worth what Lou is paying him.
Vincent Lecavalier—He played his best hockey under Tortorella and led the Lightning to a Cup. Not the same player since, I don’t think.
Jay Bouwmeester—I will never understand how a guy with those skills and that apparent quiet determination could never be on a playoff team, in Junior hockey or the NHL. It’s just not possible. Someone who has followed his career more closely could fill me in. I have no answer.
Ryan Kesler—When I watch the Canucks and Kesler is healthy, he seems to be a difference-maker to me. So what am I missing?
Mike Komisarek—Hey, he wasn’t over-rated until he signed a big free-agent contract. He was a respected defenseman that a lot of teams wanted. I’m not sure he is rated very highly now so I doubt he should be considered “overrated”.
Chris Pronger—Well, we know he is disliked by a lot of players (including teammates?). And he’s awfully dirty. Overrated? Don’t know. Teams he’s on seem to perform better, at least in the latter years of his career.
Jarome Iginla—Wasn’t Iginla a deserving MVP not long ago? Age, a struggling franchise, envy, slippage in his play probably all go into this rating.
Alexander Semin-Should he not be higher on this list? Hello KHL.
Olli Jokinen—I liked Jokinen with the Panthers—less a fan in recent years. I don’t see him enough know to know, frankly, whether he is a star, a former star or it just doesn’t matter anymore…
Ed Jovanoski—I thought this had been agreed upon years ago. That said, Florida is still getting points, somebody must be doing something right down there.

These lists are always fun, and fodder for talk shows and web sites and GM's like Burke. Everybody probably has their own list, eh?

But Leaf fans shouldn’t worry about what the league’s players think about Phaneuf. Let’s just worry about what we see with our own eyes.

Was that a mirage, or did we just see a Kulemin breakthrough?

2012-01-10T22:30:00.003-05:00

The Leafs reached the half-way mark of the season (41 games) on the weekend. With that as a backdrop, Darren Yourk of The Globe and Mail, the editor of www.globesports.com, invited a few people to take part in the Globe’s mid-season Maple Leaf podcast. James Mirtle, the well-regarded Leaf beat writer for the Globe was on hand, along with Julian Sanchez (PPP) from Pension Plan Puppets. I appreciated being invited to take part again, as I had been at the end of last season and just before the current season got underway. Here is a link to the discussion:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/are-the-maple-leafs-headed-for-the-playoffs/article2297309/

Quite a number of topics were covered. If you get a chance to listen, I hope you enjoy it.

Perhaps the most baffling aspect of the Leaf season (currently a very hopeful-feeling season) has been the production of winger Nikolai Kulemin.

Going into Tuesday night’s encounter against the struggling Sabres, Kulemin had found the back of the net a grand total of 4 times through the first half of the NHL schedule. Kulemin—still only 25 years of age—had netted 15, 16 and then 30 goals in his first three seasons, overcoming challenges including language and new surroundings to grow into a solid, two-way NHL winger at a fairly tender age.

In fact, I posted on Kulemin a number of times over the past two seasons. I thought he would break out last season and he did (though he didn’t quite double his point production from the year previous, which I mentioned here that I thought he was capable of doing). Regardless, I really liked his career arc, and thought his progression would continue into the 2011-’12 season.

Other have mentioned that he may have been deeply affected by the terrible plane crash which took the lives of a KHL team a few months ago. It was a devastating tragedy and may well have (and understandably so) contributed to the young Russian’s slow start to the current season.

Through the first part of the season, his game was uneven though the work ethic seemed to be there. The puck was not going in for him, but you didn’t get the sense that he was hurting the team most nights.

Yet as time wore on, you could detect that even Ron Wilson seemed baffled by Kulemin’s lack of offense, though he did his best to try to deflect any criticism that might have been directed toward his player.

I think most of us assumed/hoped his production would increase and that his slow start would be forgotten. But as we hit that 41-game mark—and as his former and now sometimes linemate Mikhail Grabovski seemed to finally find his game—Kulemin still looked a bit lost too much of the time.

Gone was the assertiveness that had been growing through last season, replaced by, not indifferent play exactly, but a less than focused, determined approach, it seemed.

In his first three years, Kulemin had gone from being a minus player in his rookie year (minus 7), to an even player in his sophomore season and a plus 7 a season ago. He was even through the first 41 games this season.

I remember following his progress as best I could from a distance at the 2011 World Championships this past spring. He earned less and less ice time, it seemed, as the tournament unfolded. But I thought that was just an aberration, and he would show up at Leaf camp ready to roll in September.

But as his contributions lessened, his ice time, not surprisingly, has also declined—not dramatically, but it has been less on average this season than it was in each of the last two seasons.

Then came the Buffalo game.

Kulemin opened the scoring on a Leaf power play, and then arranged Grabovski’s 13th of the season. Suddenly, Kulemin, in one period, had his first two-point game in what felt like forever, and only his second on the season, I think.

Now, we should be clear that we have seen that sense of relief on Kulemin’s (and ours as well) face a few times already this season—almost every time he has scored. We remember because he has scored so seldom that each one has stood out and we now recognize the look. Unfortunately, to this point, those “moments” where Kulemin was his old self (or at least when the puck was going in the net for him) have not led to a consistent surge in production for him. They have more been “one-offs”, if you will.

When Nik belted Kaleta in the third period, it evoked memories of another part of his game that we maybe haven’t seen as often this year—the physical dimension, as in good, clean, old-fashioned body-checking. (Kaleta is an annoying piece of work when he’s not on your team—the Leaf faithful at the ACC liked that one…).

So we had the “full Kulemin” on display Tuesday night. Grinding winger, goal-scorer, set-up guy, a player with size who can lay a big hit.

Was it a one-night wonder? Or will Kulemin (like Grabovski now seems to be) begin to play this way most nights the rest of the way?

Those who follow this site know I’m a Kulemin guy, so hopefully the Buffalo game will trigger a much-awaited turnaround.

I guess we’ll see.

At the mid-way point, here’s what we know—and don’t know—about the Leafs

2012-01-09T22:00:00.004-05:00

When I was a kid, in the pre-1967 expansion days, the NHL regular season was 70 games. Six teams played each other 14 times a season. Can you imagine? It wasn’t hard to build rivalries when you played each other that often, often on back-to-back nights. And then, you often played six or seven more games against them in the playoffs.

Rosters did not change anywhere near as often back then, so things got just a bit testy when guys lined up against each other (three lines per team, generally four defensemen only) so often.

The schedule increased to like 74 games after 1967 when the league jumped to 12 teams, and eventually has climbed to today’s standard of 82, which brings us to the end of the regular season by early to mid-April- which is when the playoffs would end in the 1950s.

But in the day, as it were, 35 games was when Leaf fans knew whether it looked like a good season was in the making, or not. That was the official mid-way point of the season.

So as we hit the modern-day mid-way point in the schedule for the Maple Leafs (41 games), here is a look at things we know, and some things we still don’t know for sure.

We do know that:

This is an entertaining team. Overall they are fast, often hard on the puck and can make plays at top speed. Speed is so important (always has been) and the Leafs have a lot of it when they use it effectively. Their overall style of play is certainly more fun to watch than say, the Lightning or the Devils.

Phaneuf is having his best season since he was a First Team end-of-season All-Star with Calgary a few years ago, when he was still a relative kid.

Kessel is playing like a true All-Star, as well. There may not be a more dangerous player in the NHL right now. He is playing with confidence, flair, making plays for his linemates and finishing more consistently than ever before. When he breaks out of his own zone at full throttle he is a sight to behold—unless you are an opposing defenseman.

I’m going to say Lupul has been the team’s most valuable player (though I’m happy to hear arguments to the contrary). I say this because I think he has helped bring Kessel’s game to a different level, and seems to be a guy who hates to lose, who can inspire his teammates to stay strong when things took difficult. He helps the team believe they can come from behind, something they have done pretty well this season with a number of very strong third-period performances.

The penalty-kill has been, well, let's just say ineffective in the first half. But in the past three games, it has been better. The apparent improvement comes on the heels of a good old-fashioned on-ice debate (argument?) a week ago at Leaf practise, involving players and coaches. We'll see if this lasts.

Kadri and Frattin, two young forwards, have shown they can play at this level. Both have spent time with the Marlies, but both have also shown some flair.

For me, Gardiner was the surprise of the first half. (Lupul a close second...but I didn't even think Gardiner should be on the big squad, much less playing significant minutes most nights.)

Bozak has taken some real strides in his overall game. Confidence sure matters. Experience, too.

Gunnarsson, to me, should remain a "must-keep" Leaf, but he may be one of the only trading pieces that would help bring a difference-maker in return.

Gabovski has had an excruciatingly middlish start to the season after a breakout 2010-'11. He has looked more like himself in recent games. Kulemin is working but still has no confidence in his shot, with only 4 goals at the half-way point.

We don’t know:

When or if Burke will make a move to bring in another offensive threat- or a shut-down defenseman. We do know he has depth on the blueline as trade bait—if he feels the team needs an infusion of offense (or that key defenseman) down the stretch.

If Reimer will still be the undisputed number-one guy in goal again at some point this season. Until Gustavsson's most recent string of impressive games, I was steadfast in my belief that the brass, including Wilson, was/were determined to see that Reimer would be number-one. My rationale was simple. Reimer is the guy they signed as the top guy over the summer, and the goalie who "saved" the team from an even worse fate a year ago. I felt certain Reimer would take the team the rest of the way. I still believe that's what Burke and Wilson want to see, but they also want to make the playoffs. When the season is over, The Monster may still have to find a new home, but at this point in time, he hopefully will be given a real chance to play well- for himself, and for the team.

If what a year ago, as I mentioned above, was the top-performing Leaf line, Grabovski, MacArthur and Kelemin, will rebound with a more productive second half. It's not that these guys have been terrible, or aren’t generally working hard. They’ve all scored some big goals, but just haven’t been finishing like they did in their breakout season in 2010-’11 (at least Grabbo and Kulemin haven't). Imagine how good the Leafs would look, and where they might be in the standings, if Kessel and Lupul had been supported by last year’s Grabbo line? A resurgence of last year's Grabbo-Kulemin-MacArthur line would surely help.

Which defenseman will be the odd man out if Liles returns before too long, now that Komisarek is back. As it is, the Leafs have 8 guys who have contributed on the blueline capably this season. And that’s so important heading into the second half of the season- and the playoffs. Teams generally have to be 10-deep on the blueline to go well into the playoff and with what they have on the farm, the Leafs have defensive depth. But two guys will have to sit. Aulie would seem to be one candidate to sit, or return to the Marlies for a time.

If there is enough overall team toughness to be successful come playoff time.

Whether the penalty-killing units will pick it up in the second half. Looking at the glass half-full, can you imagine what the Leafs might be able to do if that part of their special teams work kicks it into gear?

We said here early in the season, after the Leafs got off to a nice start (as they had a season ago) that this time it felt different. And with three straight wins in the past week, including a "character"-testing win against a good Detroit team, I still think things are different—and better.

The team has flaws, to be sure, and I do not believe they are a Cup-contending team as things stand now. But they are a playoff team. We’ll find out how much of one in a few months time.

The era of the enforcer is dead? Not really

2012-01-08T22:00:00.008-05:00

Leafland shook ever so slightly this past week when Brian Burke took center stage to take heat away (as he likes to do, and good for him) from his sometimes inconsistent team. They've won twice since. He went off on a few topics, perhaps most notably his impassioned announcement that “rats” are taking over the game.

He did this while explaining that, basically, it’s a sad day for hockey when there is no longer room for a player like Colton Orr.

Now, I’m not interested in commenting too much on one particular guy (Orr), who by all accounts is a “good guy” in the hockey world. He has certainly been the classic team guy with various organizations through the years, protecting mates and taking on bullies. But while I am not well-versed in the fine details of his career, my sense is he has largely been primarily that: a perfectly nice tough-guy, a (at best) fourth-line guy who was on any team he was on not because of his hockey skills but because he was a good fighter who, in the traditional hockey parlance, “kept the opposition honest”.

As part of this discussion, I should address the “rat” point. Yes, it’s always a concern when sneaky, dirty stuff infiltrates the game, especially if it’s not possible to shut those kinds of actions down. But there have always been “rats” in hockey, in my view, guys who were/are sneaky, dirty but not really willing to stand up for themselves in any other way. Kenny Linseman in the '80s was called "The Rat", but he was also a pretty fine hockey player. If Burrows in Vancouver is a modern-day "rat" (or Marchand in Boston for that matter), as per the discussion on "Coach's Corner" this past Saturday night, then maybe other teams need their own guys who play like Burrows and Marchand- players with skill who also play with a nasty edge. And that's the thing...those kinds of "rats", like Matthew Barnaby a few years ago and Steve Downie today, can also "play". But an opposing team that has true team toughness won’t put up with it, and I don't think that you need one guy whose role it is only to fight to deal with it. Most rats won’t fight anyway, and enforcers usually only fight enforcers, eh? Maybe you look at it differently...)

To be clear, what exactly do we mean by rats? I've identified guys who I think can play the game, but can by a bit nasty, maybe even dirty at times. Of course I'd rather they not play that way. I'd prefer that they play hard but within the rules. But does an "enforcer" really get rid of the "rat" stuff? Has it in the past?

Here’s the thing. I’ve been watching hockey since the late 1950s. That doesn’t make me an expert on rats and enforcers, but I’ve seen an awful lot of “tough guys” come and go. Some could play, some couldn't. But the best tough guys, in my memory, could also play the game.

I won’t go over the obvious with Gordie Howe. Suffice to say that Howe built a reputation early in his career that he would gladly fight, if asked, and likely knock your lights out, if you were so inclined. So not many guys bothered asking after a while (or even tried to bother him…period). Howe, seen at right in early '60s action against Jacques Plante and the Rangers, wasn't a bad player, eh?

But more in line with what we think of as a classic, prototypical NHL “policeman” would be someone who was/is rugged, not superstar-skilled but was/is the resident team tough guy, but could also play—at least a bit. I wrote a while back about two such guys, John Ferguson and Reggie Fleming. In the old six-team NHL, and then into the early years of expansion, these guys were two of the toughest men in hockey. They inspired some fear but could also play. Ferguson scored more than 20 goals on more than one occasion it seems to me and helped Montreal win 5 Stanley Cups. If we asked Jean Belieavu how important Ferguson was, he would tell us he may have been the most important Hab in that '60s era- because he could play but also kept the other team away from the Montreal skill players. (A while back, I penned a piece here about Colton Orr and Mike Brown, and how they were a throwback to the days of Ferguson and Fleming, but I'm not sure Orr has ever really reached that class of player...)

For his part, Fleming put up some decent offensive numbers with the Hawks (including helping a Cup win in 1961), Bruins and Rangers. Believe me, those guys could find a job today because they weren’t just fourth-line guys who played three minutes a game.

But they weren’t alone. I won’t list fifty guys, but clearly there have always been enforcers who could also play. Butch Bouchard, the old 1950s Montreal captain, was one example. Bert Olmstead, a star with the Habs and the Leafs, scored a lot, also fought and hit—a lot. Winger Eddie "The Entertainer" Shack scored some big goals with the Leafs while still acting as a part-time tough guy in the ‘60s. He won four Cups with Toronto. Leaf great Bobby Pulford (seen at left), in his prime, was a gritty guy who scored big goals and would take on anybody. He was a major part of those 1960s Cups in Toronto.

In the ‘70s, the Bruins were built on skill—and toughness. Bobby Orr could really fight but mostly he just skated around people, the best player around. But he also had teammates like Johnny McKenzie and Wayne Cashman who put up points and were tough as nails. They didn’t allow the opposition to take liberties with Bruin superstars or their smaller forwards (though there weren’t, in truth, many “small” Bruin forwards in that ‘70s era.) In the Don Cherry years (and later), they had all kinds of tough guys. Stan Jonathan, Terry O’Reilly et all. But again, not only would those guys drop the gloves, they would light the lamp enough to be offensive threats, too.

Same with the Rangers of that era. Individuals like Vic Hadfield and Bill Fairbairn were big producers but also could fight. The Flyers were thugs but even their muggers like Saleski and Schultz could score 20 goals a season in their “glory years”.

The beauty of the Montreal Canadiens throughout the 1970s was that they had tough guys, but for the most part they could also play. Bob Gainey didn’t fight but was hard to play against. So was Yvon Lambert. Now, defenseman Gilles Lupien was mostly there because of his size, but Larry Robinson was the Zdeno Chara of his day. Big, tall, talented—and tough. He didn’t plan to fight, but if you insisted….

In more recent times, what about Claude Lemieux? He helped different teams win Stanley Cups. He avoided fights, but he could be nasty. Was he a rat?

My point is, the history of the game that Burke talks about is not really about guys who basically were on a team to fight and only fight. And if we're honest, is that not Orr's primary job with the Leafs? Just look at his ice time.

I know Pat Quinn, for example, always hated the idea of having guys on his teams that could only fight. His philosophy was, if you can’t play, he wasn’t interested. Say what we will about Tie Domi, but under Quinn, he scored a fair bit and contributed some energetic hockey quite often, in addition to keeping people away from Sundin and other more vulnerable Leafs.

So, if you have guys who are truly rugged, tough competitors and can play the game, that’s the ideal. Isn’t that part of the Bruins’ success in recent years? Guys like Lucic make you keep your head up. You don’t really want to have to fight them, so you may tread a little more carefully than you otherwise might. And the guy is a scorer, too, a first-line player.

Brendan Shanahan was a great player who could look after himself. Mark Messier, too.

And that’s where the game is going, and isn’t that a good thing? In other words, if two players, two good players, are fighting for possession and tempers flare, well, they fight. They sit for five minutes but then get back to playing their regular shift. Whether their “fight” helped tilt momentum, or sent a “message”, well, only the players in that particular game know.

But unlike players who are essentially glorified fighters on skates, the aforementioned NHL’ers would have been high-end NHL players even if they never had a fight in their life. When players like Colton Orr (and he’s not alone, I’m only using him as a reference point because Burke went on about it…) fight, they generally then spend the rest of the night glued to the bench, having “done their job”.

For me, that’s not a part of hockey that we have to keep.

Yes, there will likely always be a role for tough hockey players. But they will be valuable, in the fine tradition of John Ferguson, Reggie Fleming, Wayne Cashman, Clark Gillies, Bob Probert and many others, for their combined talents: toughness and skill.

If Burke is sad that Orr may lose his job because he sees Colton a person of integrity who has given everything he has to the game and has been a solid professional, I get that.

But lament that, not the loss of a “role” that really should never have been here in the first place.

If Burke thinks Orr is one of his 12 best forwards, then by all means give him a spot on the roster. But clearly he is not one of the 12 best. And it's not just because there are rats in the game.

So yes, let's deal with the "rats", if that really is an issue. But in a more enlightened time, do we have to fill rosters with fighters as our best idea for a solution?

In short, for me, a real enforcer also brings other things to the table. When the Red Wings retaliated against Lemieux and the Avalanche years ago, it was not just a matter of one "tough" guy/fighter standing up against what Lemieux had done to Kris Draper. A number of Wings responded. But they did it the right way- not like Todd Bertuzzi did, which was cowardly. And Lemieux, who rarely fought, knew what he had to do and did it.

The Wings who stood up for Draper could also play the game. And when I think "enforcer", those are the guys I think are the real deal.

If I were Bob Murray and the Leafs wanted Getzlaf, here’s what I’d insist on…

2012-01-07T22:40:00.006-05:00

I believe we can say it: the win over the Red Wings has some meaning. I say that because not all regular-season victories are quite created equal. All games are worth two points, of course, but some wins set the scale for something more to come. And the win Saturday night for Toronto may turn out to be one of those moments.

Now, I hesitate to predict turning points simply based on a third win in a row at home, or even beating a fine Detroit team. (Some context for such reluctance: as a then die-hard and young Green Bay Packer fan on the opening day of the 1970 (or was it 1971?) NFL season, I remember the TV game-announcers saying the then young Packer defensive line had come of age after a big-third down stop when the game was still close in the first half. The Packers went on to get hammered 40-0 by Detroit…)

Since then, I’m not inclined to pronounce such perceived key moments or big wins as “turning points”. In hockey, momentum sometimes only lasts until the next goal, or the next game.

But I like the fact that the Leafs were able to lose a three-goal lead but still earn a win. A sweet and very smart (and he knew he was going to get hit, too) play by Lupul was huge, coming on the heels of a surprisingly egregious defensive letdown by the Wings. But you know what I really liked? With 50 seconds to go, Franzen, I think it was, was left all alone in front of the Leaf net and one-timed a great pass from behind the net. Gustavsson was in position to anticipate and make the save. The result was two points for the blue and white.

Next time it could be Reimer- does it matter?

***

In the two and a half years since Vintage Leaf Memories was launched, those of you who drop by fairly regularly will know I’m not big on rumors or trade speculation. It’s not that I don’t find it as much fun as the next person (heck, fans need to engage in some arm-chair quarterbacking--I spent most of my youth concocting possible Leaf trades in my head at school...); it’s simply that there are plenty of sites that handle this sort of thing. Even if I was so inclined, they do it far better than I could.

But we do seem to be at a point in time when the Leafs are likely engaged in some serious talks with somebody about moves that would improve upon the current roster. Burke always makes a point of saying that he likes to move ahead of the pack. (I don’t know if this is historically accurate; perhaps someone has done the actual research on his claim…) That is, he prefers to trade in advance of the deadline, when he feels he can make more fruitful moves and not be under duress.

So the timing is such that one is led to believe that something of a significant nature could transpire in the next week or two, if not sooner. And the wild (maybe it’s not so wild, given the Ducks have seemingly been fairly open about their intentions) speculation surrounding Getzlaf mounts by the day.

I have no idea what is or isn’t being discussed, and if the Leafs are in play for Getzlaf, Bobby Ryan or anyone else in Anaheim—or elsewhere—but I’m of the view that Burke does not want to be left at the altar if one (or both) of those star players are available.

On the heels of their three-game winning steak, the Leafs may feel they can stand pat, but I don't think so. And if this is indeed a possibility, chances to acquire players like that in their prime come around fairly seldom.

Now, we can sit and speculate what the Leafs would be willing to give up to acquire one or both of these premier forward talents. But I’m focused today on putting myself in the shoes of Anaheim General Manager Bob Murray, the man who replaced Burke as GM with the Ducks.

We know a few things. Murray and Burke have worked together and likely quite respect each other. The two men have made a number of trades together since Burke took over as GM of the Leafs. Perhaps the biggest deal saw Francois Beauchemin head to Anaheim a year ago in return for then injury-played (and career-stalled) Joffrey Lupul and a kid a lot of us knew precious little about—though draft geeks certainly did—young Jake Gardiner.

This was a trade that may prove to be as, or more, one-sided than the Phaneuf/Calgary trade. Even if Lupul wasn’t having an All-Star season while the Ducks struggle to win games, Gardiner’s emergence as a smooth-skating, smart and poised young defenseman seemingly ensures he will be a star in the game for years to come. He may not become another Scott Niedermayer, but he can play, and should only get better and better. Maybe even an All-Star, and I mean the kind they name at the end of an NHL season.

In any event, this is part of the backdrop, at least in my mind, of any discussions that might be ongoing between the Leafs and the Ducks. Murray is well aware of his recent trading history with Burke, and how the hockey world sees the transactions. It’s clear that the perception is that Burke has “won” the deals. He shockingly dumped salary (Jason Blake) in one deal and stole Lupul and Gardiner in the other.

So Murray won’t want to be ambushed again, and if he chooses to deal with the Leafs, I would think he has to exact a huge price to give up players of the stature of Ryan or Getzlaf. Burke didn’t draft Getzlaff but he was GM when the Ducks selected Ryan. He seems to love both players.

Bottom line? If I’m Bob Murray, my negotiations don’t proceed on offering either of those two guys to Burke unless Jake Gardiner is coming back to Anaheim. And, since Murray already gave Gardiner away a year ago in an awful deal (click to read more), he has to do a lot better than just get back a kid that he should never have let go in the first place—especially since he would now be giving up one of the best power-forwards (Getzlaff) or pure offensive talents (Ryan) in the game today.

So in Murray’s shoes, I would be insisting on Gardiner, Schenn and James Reimer, and see where things go from there. Like including Tyler Bozak and/or Kulemin, as well.

We all remember how Burke and Boston’s Peter Chiarelli went toe to toe in two major deals over the past few years. Burke got exactly what he wanted in Phil Kessel—a young, high-flying talent who had already proven he could score at the NHL level and would only get better (presumably) with time. And Kessel has. But the price Chiarelli extracted (two first-rounders) turned out to be much more than Burke likely really believed would be the case. We now know Tyler Seguin and Doug Hamilton are two awfully promising players who may be cornerstones in Boston for a decade.

The second time around, Burke fleeced Chiarelli, but while no one would ever admit this publicly, Chiarelli probably figured he had already garnered huge dividends from the first deal with Burke, so he was prepared to take a hit on the Kaberle move to get what he wanted- a puck-moving defenseman. He gave up Colborne and the first-rounder that gave the Leafs (through a subsequent draft day deal) young Tyler Biggs. Toronto looks to be the winners of that deal, long-term.

However, the Bruins won their Cup, though the role Kabby played was pretty minor, and Seguin’s contribution was limited to a few offensive outbursts, though certainly well-timed. But even when and if Toronto wins a Cup with the players Burke got from the Bruins, they will only be matching what the Bruins have already accomplished.

So now, Murray faces a decision. If he must (for financial reasons?) move one or both of Getzlaf and Ryan, he has to determine if he can get a better deal elsewhere—or can Toronto offer the “best” deal.

And if I’m Murray, that “best” deal has to include Gardiner, Schenn and Reimer.

Dion Phaneuf makes it, but has the term “All-Star” has lost its meaning in hockey?

2012-01-06T22:00:00.003-05:00

It was nice to hear that Dion Phaneuf was voted to the mid-season NHL All-Star team, though some people were upset that the Senators have four guys named to the squad, a case of modern-day ballot box stuffing to be sure. (In fairness, Leaf fans did the same thing with our players, though some Leafs were arguably more deserving based on their actual performance in the first half of the season. But let's be honest, a lot of people vote because a player plays for a particular team, and not because of how well they are playing...)

We all remember the rather odd and slightly absurd NHL All-Star selection process last January. In what was thought to be an innovative concept, the league asked the two team “captains” (am I getting this right?) to pick their prospective teammates—one by one.

This rather awkwardly reduced things to the awful old school-yard approach, but I guess a lot of people liked it. It was a “show”, and we can't seem to decide anything without a big production nowadays, eh.

For me at least, one of those once truly significant achievements—or designations, if you will—has lost a lot of meaning over the past couple of decades. I’m thinking specifically in terms of what it means to be an “All-Star” in hockey, and in other sports, for that matter.

It’s funny, I think I’ve felt this way my whole life. I remember when I was a kid in the early 1960s that the NHL used to have a vote (certain writers and their fellow select media few…) to decide who were the “mid-season” NHL All-Stars. They also voted on who was the leader for the Hart Trophy (MVP) etc. at the official mid-way point of the NHL season. (I should add that in those days, in pre-’67 expansion, the annual All-Star game was actually played before the regular-season began. The game pitted the defending Stanley Cup champs against an All-Star team of the rest of the NHL's best players. There was no mid-season All-Star game until 1969, I think it was…) So, the voting I am referring to did not place guys in a mid-season All-Star game. It was simply voting which counted toward half of the final All-Star ballot. There was a first-half ballot and a second-half ballot and the league added the two together at the end of the season. The overall leader was named the first or second-team end-of-season All-Star or Trophy winner. (I have probably only made things more confusing...)

In any event, a guy could pile up such a huge lead in balloting at the half-way mark in those days that he would practically sew up the end result with a big first half—or if he had a big reputation.

The former happened in Toronto the year that young Leaf winger Brit Selby (pictured at right) had something like 11 goals prior to the half-way point of the pre-expansion 1965-'66 season. Brit, all of 20 years old and right out of junior at the time, had a break-out first half and was quite rightly the top vote-getter for the rookie award. But he only scored two or three goals in the entire second half. Though some other first-year players had been more consistent, Selby walked away with the Calder Trophy as the NHL rookie-of-the-Year because he had accumulated such a big lead on the first-half ballot. (Selby had a second tour of duty with the Leafs a few years later, and I thought he was a better player then even though his numbers weren't as impressive, perhaps.)

I guess in one way it made sense to break it down that way to determine who deserved to be a full-season “All-Star” or Trophy winner, but I still think waiting until the regular season is finished to vote is the best approach.

But my broader point today is that the actual term “All-Star” has been diluted.

Take the NFL, for example. If you play in the Pro Bowl (the meaningless game that historically was played after the NFL championship/Super Bowl game), you are considered an All-Star. But the truth is, five guys might have begged off playing in the game because they say they are injured, or frankly, are just not interested in playing an exhibition game after their season has been over for weeks. So you may be the 6^th best quarterback in the balloting, but because Manning, Brady and others don’t want to show up, you become a “Pro Bowler”. For the rest of your career, you will get credit for being a “Pro Bowler” and an “All Star”.

The thing is, to me, the only ballot that really matters in football is the one that isn’t completed until the 16-game season is over, and results in the legitimate year-end “All-Pro” selections. The players who are voted to those teams are the very best at their position—1 quarterback, 1 fullback, 2 halfbacks, 2 guards, four linebackers, etc. There is a “First Team” All-Pro squad and a “Second Team” All-Pro squad. That’s the team I wait to hear about every February, and that selection has real meaning for me. If you make one of those teams, you truly are an All-Star.

It’s much the same with baseball. That sport really has it backwards. The “mid-season classic” laps up all the attention and hoopla but the players selected are often not really All-Stars. Every team has to be represented, for one, and goodness, fans play a role in that selection process, often by stuffing the ballot box for their favorite guy—hardly the way to pick the players who are truly the best at their position.

I may be wrong, but very few people seem to pay attention to baseball’s end of season “All-Star” team. Hell, is there even one? Sure, we focus on the Cy Young award, who the MVP is and the Gold Glove winners, but the real hoopla surrounds the game in the middle of the season in July. You may hit .200 in the second half of the season, but if you played in that game, you’re remembered forever as an “All-Star”.

Truthfully, I have to say that I feel the same way about how things unfold in the NHL. The mid-season All-Star game, when they bother to have it, means nothing to me. It’s an awful game, and who gets selected is largely meaningless.

What I do pay close attention to, every year, is when the league announces the true, end-of-season "First" and "Second Team" NHL All-Star selections. Those are the guys who have achieved something special, yet I would bet that most of us could not name the twelve true All-Star players so designated just this past June, much less in years past.

I don’t care so much how many All-Star games a particular individual has played in. I’m much more apt to tip my hat to the guy who has been named, say, the very best right-winger in the entire league at the end of the season, even once in their career.

None of this is a big deal, I realize, of course. I just wish we, as fans—and the mainstream media—focused more on meaningful All-Star accolades, not the mid-season stuff.

So good for Phaneuf for being "voted" in. But I'll be a lot happier for him (and for Kessel or Lupul or any other Leaf), if they make the end-of-season All-Star team, like Phaneuf did in Calgary a few years ago and like McCabe and Sundin did on behalf of the Leafs in 2003-'04.

That really would be - and mean - something.

Will the "Monster" now get his chance?

2012-01-05T22:30:00.002-05:00

Was it even a week ago that I nudged Leaf followers here—whether they liked the notion or not—to grudgingly accept the fact that Burke and Wilson had long ago decided Reimer was their guy, and, all things being equal, it was going to stay that way the rest of the season.

I believe everything that I wrote still stands: that is, the brass paid Reimer like a young, emerging “number-one” goaltender in the off-season. They loved his salvation (as in saving a sinking ship) performance a season ago and likely feel he is the ideal Allaire-type pupil (and very cool customer) who is a keeper—no pun intended.

But the early-season concussion/whiplash issue and some uneven efforts later, we are in a brave new world. I remain steadfast in the view that while they may not say it out loud, management still wants—and expects—Reimer to be the guy before this regular-season is all over in April. I’m absolutely certain their view has not changed. (Didn’t Wilson say, earlier this season, that Gustavsson may not be the kind of goalie who plays best as a number one, or words to that effect? The implication was that the pressure was too much for him. I don’t want to misquote him, so please correct me if I missed the context of his comments…)

I thought Reimer actually played a couple of very strong games after he had struggled a bit when he first came back from his injury. But he was not himself again in a couple recent games, and now Gustavsson has won two in a row, including a shut out—though the Tuesday contest was not exactly a goaltending classic.

The Jets also provided precious little energy or opposition Thursday night, but Gustavsson did his job when he had to, and helped earn an important two points for the Leafs, who suddenly have to be feeling a lot better about themselves heading into Saturday night’s contest with Red Wings.

A few weeks ago some observers were wondering if, even when Monster did play, part of the objective was to get him some playing time so he could be showcased and get something helpful back in a potential trade. With his free-agency looming this summer I’m still not certain his body of work would have many, if any, NHL GM’s running to sign him to a long-term deal, but I think he’s a talented guy. I’ve posted here many times before that I think he may be able to play well, if not necessarily flourish, somewhere where he might feel more appreciated.

We now find the Leafs in a rather interesting situation. Here’s the question: with the playoffs a relative “necessity” for Burke and Wilson (for each their own reasons) will Gustavsson now be allowed to play a run of games, even if he loses some?

When he had that opportunity at the tail end of Reimer’s fairly prolonged absence earlier this season, he was starting to find his game when Reimer was inserted back into the line-up.

The Leafs need top rank goaltending down the stretch. Someone has to step forward. Most fans don’t care if it's Gus, the likeable Reimer, Ben Scrivens or Johnny Bower (who, at 87, might have been able to beat a listless Winnipeg team Thursday night). But one, or some combination of goalies, will need to steal games at times the rest of the way. Not all opponents will look like the two the Leafs have played so far this week, eh?

Reimer will start again soon, I’m sure. The brass likes him, and so do a lot of us. But winning is the only agenda right now. Building Reimer back up is part of the coach’s job, for sure, and that will be all the easier when he starts putting wins back to back again. And I believe he will, soon.

But for now, it looks like Gus, despite what I wrote a few days ago—and what management really was hoping for.

NHL concussions: yes, it is a major issue

2012-01-04T21:24:00.004-05:00

A mainstream media type opined recently that speed wasn’t the reason that NHL concussions are on the rise.

I don’t have the data in front of me, so I can’t comment one way or the other. But besides the fact that the medical and sports world knows much more about concussion (and its long-term effects) than ever before and also how to properly diagnose concussions, there have to be some reasons why this is happening, eh?

I’m certainly not well informed on this subject, but surely the speed of the game, combined with the size of the players and the sheer force of the hits at such high speed (with that hard equipment) is taking a toll.

Players hear it from coaches, scouts, management—and fans—that we all want players to hit hard, play tough, etc. It’s all part of the culture that has been ingrained in hockey players for generations.

And we absolutely don’t want to lose the physical nature of the game. Fans don’t. The players don’t. Brooks Laich of the Capitals spoke out strongly on this subject not long ago. Virtually no one wants to get rid of the physical aspect of hockey.

But surely we need to find a balance, if one exists, an approach to rules - and expectations within the game- that could derail the shocking number of diagnosed concussions and still allow for some real hitting in the game. (I realize it’s a slippery line…if you can’t hit “high” and you can’t hit “low”, there isn’t much room to hit a guy, is there?)

And yes, the Leafs are among the NHL teams who have been snake bit this season because of concussions. Already, James Reimer, John-Michael Liles and Colby Armstrong have been affected (and Colton Orr last season), but that is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is happening around the league—and that’s a scary thought.

As opposed to thinking about who has concussions, the easier question to answer may be: name the teams who have not been impacted by concussion in recent years, including this season?

We know that just in the past half dozen years, Eric Lindros (his younger brother, a high-draft pick, had to retire in his early 20s), Paul Kariya, Keith Primeau and many other outstanding players saw their careers curtailed and ultimately ended by concussion.

I don’t have a comprehensive list of affected (current) players in front of me, but off the top of my head, here are just a few of the big-name guys and/or rising young players that I am aware of who have been injured with a concussion- and there have to be many more:

Pittsburgh- Sidney Crosby, Kris Letang
Philadelphia- Claude Giroux, Chris Pronger
New York Rangers- Marc Staal
Boston- Marc Savard, Nathan Horton (since returned)
Ottawa- Daniel Alfreddson, Milan Michalek
Buffalo- Tyler Myers, Nathan Gerbe, Ryan Miller
Islanders- Al Montoya, Steve Staios
Washington- Jay Beagle, Nick Backstrom
Tampa Bay- Victor Hedman
Carolina- Jeff Skinner
Toronto- James Reimer, Colby Armstrong, John-Michael Liles
Winnipeg-
Montreal- Max Pacioretty (returned)
New Jersey-
Florida Panthers-

St. Louis- Alex Steen, Andy Mcdonald
Nashville- Shea Weber
Edmonton- Ben Eager, Colton Teubert
Phoenix-
San Jose-
Dallas-
Minnesota- Guy Latendresse
Detroit-
Los Angeles- Mike Richards, Simon Gagne
Vancouver-
Columbus- Radek Martinek
Colorado- Peter Mueller
Chicago- Marcus Kruger, Daniel Carcillo
Anaheim- Matt Beleskey
Calgary- Alex Tanguay

I’m sure I’m missing guys, and you can fill in the blanks for me.

I don’t have a solution, but I’d be interested in hearing from you as to whether you feel this is one of the big issues facing the game—not only for the health of the players, but because we are seeing a game diminished because some of the very best can’t take to the ice any more—and some we may never see again.

Here’s hoping the trading chip is not….Gunnarsson

2012-01-03T22:30:00.003-05:00

It’s always easier to talk hopefully after a win, and the Leafs have to be feeling better on the heels of their offensive outburst against the Lightning at the ACC Tuesday night.

The Eastern Conference standings are tight and will likely remain so until the middle of April, so every two-point night is huge for the blue and white.

Tampa Bay has struggled this season, though they had been performing better in recent times. That, though, was not in evidence against the Leafs, who took advantage of some sloppy play by the Lightning (much like the last time the Leafs took on Tampa earlier in the season.) Without Ohlund and Hedman, Tampa Bay is not very good along the blueline. I’m not sure they would be great even with those guys, but those are big losses.

And after the “Big 3” up front, they lack much forward depth. (So much for putting most of your cap money into three—albeit very talented—guys…) Nonetheless, Tampa had been putting up some points before the Toronto encounter.

Nonetheless, Grabovski has now put together successive impressive outings, which may be telling us he is ready to spring from a near season-long semi-slumber. With Kulemin also finding his legs (if not always the net) these last few weeks, we may finally be able to expect some semblance of consistent production from more than one line going forward.

It was nice to see Kadri and Frattin on the scoreboard, as well, and a penalty kill that allowed no goals. Blocked passing lanes, blocked shots and the presence of Boyce and Lombardi seemed to help, at least against the Lightning.

One thing I will put out there: as much as I’ve never been a Downie guy (at all), and as annoying an opponent as he can be, I wonder if Leaf fans would like to have a guy like that? He’s a minus player, though he brings energy and physicality, I’ll say that.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting it. He’s not a player I like. But is there something in the way he plays that could make a player like him fit?

It’s entirely possible the Leafs will decide that they can be good enough with their present roster as it is to not only make the playoffs but do some damage once there.

Yet I can’t help but continue to believe something of substance will transpire between now and the trade deadline, something beyond the exchange of AHL players. I’m not in the business of forecasting specifics, so I have no idea “who” the Leafs might be after, but an impact forward, for lack of a better term, keeps springing to mind. (A true ‘shutdown’ defenseman, too, though we have loads of defenders already and Phaneuf or Schenn, in theory, could fill that role…) And to acquire a player who will score goals and play a tough, grinding style would require the Leafs to give up something of value in return.

Who could that be?

In the past, I’ve opined that Kadri has been on the table, and I believe that has been true—though I’m not certain he still is. But if not the promising young forward—who has showed some spark in his return to the big club—who could be made available? They wouldn’t likely trade a forward to get a forward, and while they have a number of young forwards who may be stellar NHL’ers some day, they don’t exactly have a ton of fully proven high-end guys up front just yet.

Given that their goalies are all young and also “unproven” by traditional NHL standards, I can’t see that’s the move, either. So it has to be someone from the 10-deep defense corps, someone who doesn’t have a ridiculous contract and who would provide instant short-term (and longer-term) results for their new team.

I can only see one guy on the Leaf blueline who fits that description. And that’s Carl Gunnarsson.

I’ve posted previously that for me, Gunnarsson (who logged more than 25 minutes Tuesday night, leading the team) should stay right here. But if I can appreciate the guy’s value, I’m quite certain NHL GM’s much more perceptive than I are noticing the same thing. That is, that this Leaf defenseman plays an under-the-radar game and makes often difficult plays very simple. He takes very few penalties and is actually a smart offensive defenseman though he doesn’t pile up points.

In short, he is s solid, smart, nice-skating defenseman. Not overly physical, but pretty darn good.

All things being equal, he should be a keeper in Toronto— at least in the foreseeable future. I never like the idea of trading a young defenseman with a high ceiling. But I go back to my earlier thought: if the Leafs do make a move, someone of quality has to go. And I say again, if not Gunner, then who?

It’s a bit of a dilemma for me—and a much bigger one for the Leafs.

OK Leafs, time to get serious

2012-01-02T21:13:00.004-05:00

There’s plenty of time left in the 2011-’12 NHL season for teams to make a playoff push. And my column title today is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I well realize the Leafs have been quite serious about their efforts so far this season, from management through to the coaching staff and every guy on the roster.

They are trying hard to win every night and we’ve all seen some legitimate progress across much of the roster this season. It’s just that now is the time for an objective and cold assessment of where they “fit” in the wide-open and very much up for grabs Eastern Conference.

I say this because, as we approach the official mid-way (41 games) point of the current season, the Leafs are in the mix in their Conference, very much in the playoff hunt in the jumbled standings where one win—or one loss—changes the flow.

Yes, the Leafs have every opportunity to make the playoffs, and in the East, they really should. There are no excuses. Virtually every team is fighting through injuries—Markov in Montreal, Myers in Buffalo, Sid in Pittsburgh, Staal in New York, etc. So while yes, the Leafs face some injury hurdles, they have plenty of depth and should not miss a beat. None of the injured players—while helpful, to be sure, such as Liles—are irreplaceable. In fact, it’s an opportunity for other guys to earn more ice time or a spot on the roster.

So when I look at the standings and see the Leafs neck and neck with the Ottawa Senators—a team I thought might win 15 games this season—well, it’s not exactly what I was expecting. I give the Senators credit, but let's be clear: if it’s not reasonable for Leaf fans to expect to be ahead of the Senators half-way through this season (and well ahead, actually), then the team has not progressed as much as Burke and Wilson would have us believe. You can’t really have it both ways. You can't tell fans that we are a playoff team, we are much better, we have all this depth, then point at injuries and struggle to get past what should be one of the weakest teams in the East.

Yes, the Sens are just one opponent. But we have to be honest in our assessment. Tampa Bay has really not been much this season so far, but appears to be playing better of late. If that is indeed so and Miller starts to play as he can Buffalo can be a factor, too (we have to assume the Capitals will make it) and the Leafs will be in tough. I posted a while back on whom their real opposition is for the final playoff spots in the East, and I still believe that’s what it will come down to. But while I believe there is every reason that the Leafs should make it, there is not a whole lot of room for giving away points.

That said, every team has games where they can’t hold a lead and end up giving away points here and there throughout a long season. And there are nights you steal points when you shouldn’t. But I’m talking about the overall trend here. The Leafs need to get back to being a team that other teams have to worry about a bit and game-plan for. They can’t be a team totally dependent on one line and a sometimes predictable (if occasionally potent) power-play.

What's the call to action? It's very simple and there is nothing very scientific about it. They need everyone to step up—Reimer, for sure, the young “D”, and all 12 forwards every night.

This is not a time for excuses- injuries, youth, a tough schedule, whatever.

With a team that hasn’t made the playoffs since 2004, one that is young, presumably highly-motivated and hungry, they should be really to play every night. And if they do, they can make the playoffs.

And I think it's fair to say that's the least fans should be able to expect at this point in Burke's tenure.

I'm reminded of young Kadri after seeing a comment from ex-Leaf Johnny Wilson- a window into how the game is so different now

2012-01-01T21:10:00.010-05:00

When I was working on a piece about Ron Wilson and his contract extension recently, I remembered that I had written some time ago about Ron’s father Larry, and uncle Johnny, both well-known professional players in the 1950s and ‘60s. Both had nice careers, Johnny spending quite a bit of time in the NHL, including with the Maple Leafs briefly in the late 1950s. (He actually helped the Red Wings of Gordie Howe and many other greats win a number of Cups in the early 1950s...)

Both gentlemen, later coached the Detroit Red Wings and were respected hockey guys, for sure.

When it was announced that Johnny Wilson had died last week at the age of 82, I came across a thoughtful piece on Johnny (pictured in his early 1950s Red Wing days at left) by one of my favorite mainstream media guys, Mike Zeisberger of the Toronto Sun. In that piece, Mike recalled an interview that his Sun colleague Steve Simmons had penned before the current season got underway, in which he spoke with Johnny Wilson. Wilson spoke proudly of his nephew Ron, of course, but also made a very relevant observation about the way the game is played nowadays.

The elder Wilson was quoted as saying, “I was a left winger. I don’t know how I’d react to all this coaching today. (In my day, as a player) I’d go out there and react to the situations as they transpire. I’d do it instinctively. Today, you’ve got somebody telling you, you shouldn’t do this, you shouldn’t do that. I think I’d go out there and be too afraid of making a mistake.”

The comment is of particular interest to someone like myself, because I am old enough to actually remember watching Johnny Wilson play in the NHL, and I, too, have seen such a massive shift in the way the game is played in this era, compared with the 1950s and ‘60s, particularly.

Given the passage of time, I guess that's not a shock, eh? Oh, sure, hockey is the same sport, but it’s a very, very different game these days. It’s not just that the players are bigger and faster, though that certainly contributes. But players are able to do such high-skill moves at lightning speed that it's, well, quite remarkable. And beyond that, the game is, of course, coached in such fine—sometimes excruciating—detail.

In the elder Wilson’s day, back when I was just a kid, there was one coach on the bench. He wasn’t the “head coach”—he was the only coach. There was nobody “upstairs” sending messages to the three guys behind the bench. There was no one by the coach’s side in charge of, say, the defensemen. Video was introduced by some teams in the 1960s (there was actually a Hockey Night in Canada feature about Punch Imlach's use of video in the mid '60s), yet wasn’t used so much to break down opposition tendencies until people like Leaf coach Roger Neilson made such opponent analysis part of his daily game preparation in the late 1970s.

But what really caught me about Wilson’s comment was his reference to doing things on instinct. I’m not saying that’s a lost “art”, because the players today (at least many of them) are supremely skilled and are not only talented but in many cases very creative, too. They think on their feet awfully well, and again, at very high speed.

I just think that the game is coached in such a way that many guys are, as Johnny Wilson put it, “afraid to make a mistake”.

If you played for Jacques Lemaire in Jersey or Minnesota over the past fifteen seasons, or you play now for Ken Hitchcock (or any number of other systems-obsessed modern-day NHL coaches) you better be at the “right” spot on the ice- or else, It’s all there in their “x’s” and “o’s” coaching and systems manual.

I think of a player like young Nazem Kadri now with the Leafs. How many times has he been up and down already, between being sent back to junior hockey and of course, the Marlies. And he's still only 21. Every time the kid comes up, we all micro-analyze his play, look to see whether he “turns the puck over” at the other team’s blueline or loses his man defensively, etc.

And we’re just the fans. Imagine what he’s hearing from the coaches. Like the elder Wilson said, “Don’t do this, don’t do that….”.

I've said here many times about Kadri: I wish they would just let him play. I don;t mean he should be allowed to free-wheel and just do whatever he wants on every shift, but I've always believed that an athlete gets better by making mistakes- and being allowed to make mistakes without instant punishment. And Wilson is not even as dogmatic as some NHL coaches, I don't think. But Kadri has certainly been on a very short leash, it seems to me.

It strikes me that guys are rarely just allowed to play and develop naturally. Sometimes making mistakes is in fact the best way to learn.

If you watch games from the ‘50s, ‘60s and even into the ‘70s, you see all kinds of mistakes, all over the ice. Mistakes were just part of the game. Oh, I’m sure coaches weren’t thrilled if a defenseman gave the puck away in his own zone, or a forward threw the puck blindly somewhere and it caused a rush going in the other direction.

But it was just a different mindset. Some teams were always a bit more “defensive”, sure. In fact, the Leafs, under Imlach, were never a star-studded team and tended to be more of a checking team, as opposed to a team like the Red Wings or the Black Hawks. Heck, the always-successful Habs were famous for being a “fire wagon” team for decades, until Scotty Bowman (in the ‘70s) started also focusing on defensive awareness, tied into a still explosive attack.

No one spoke in those days of the “transition” game, the “trap”, the “left-wing lock”, “fronting” or any of the modern-day jargon that now populates the game. Most of the statistics we focus on now weren’t a thing, even for GM’s, in those days. As Johnny Wilson said, guys basically went out and played, and reacted to what was happening on the ice. Players didn’t sit back in a football-style defensive posture, just waiting for the other team to try to find a way to break through the human logjam.

I always sound awfully out-of touch when I say this, but I do sometimes prefer the way the game was in those “olden days”, including after expansion in 1967 when there were suddenly twice as many jobs for players—and a little more job security, on the one hand (I realize if you were a young guy playing for someone like Imlach in Toronto in the ‘60s, a trip to the AHL was always a possibility if you made too many mistakes…).

But in that post ’67 era, especially, there were tons of mistakes, goals—and goalies who didn’t cover the entire bottom half of the net with technical precision and perfection.

And the era was filled with players, like Kadri, who weren’t afraid a “mistake” would earn them a one-way ticket to the minors.

Leaf fans need to realize: Reimer is the guy

2011-12-31T23:00:00.004-05:00

Though the Leafs lost 3-2, I wanted to mention a note I received just prior to Saturday night's game in Winnipeg. DP, a regular visitor here who often contributes with some great posts, mentioned that he was attending the Leaf game against the Jets in person.

Not unusual on the surface, but he added that, in his 40 plus years as a Leaf fan, it was his first opportunity to see the team live!

That was so tremendous to hear. I hope he had a wonderful time and can find a moment to share a bit about the experience of watching his team-- and maybe let us all know about the great atmosphere in Winnipeg.

***

Before the “official” announcement was made in Winnipeg, there was some social media discussion on Saturday about who the Leafs would—and should—start against the Jets.

Some felt Gustavsson deserved a start, given his generally strong play just before Reimer returned from his injury earlier in December—and on the heels of Reimer not being quite his old self in the last couple of games (after, in fairness, two pretty strong outings before that).

But given that Reimer is a “local” kid—heck, he was born not too far from Winnipeg—we had to figure that Wilson was going to do what NHL coaches generally do: start the guy with the local ties. Don Cherry talked about this tendency between periods. Coaches almost always want to give players a chance to shine in their own backyard. And it’s understandable. Players in those circumstances are pumped up and while I have no empirical data, my observation over the years is that at worst, players in that situation will be a bit over-amped, but generally speaking they’ll play a good game. It’s easy to give your best in those circumstances. (Quick aside: I recall back in the ‘70s and ‘80s that the Leafs would often complain that, because opposing teams had so many Ontario-born players, it was tougher to win at home because the visiting teams were so pumped to play at Maple Leaf Gardens…)

It’s generally always been this way in the NHL. If a goalie is up against his former team, quite often, he’ll get the start. And yes, coaches like to give local guys their shot. I remember back in the mid-1960s, when Punch Imlach (left) was the General Manager and coach of the Maple Leafs. His son, Brent, was a nice Junior player at the time with the local Toronto Marlies. Imlach needed a player on an emergency basis during the 1965-’66 season. So he dipped down to the Marlies (the Leafs owned the junior team) and brought up Brent—who was all of 19 at the time—for a game against the defending Stanley Cup champion Montreal Canadiens. I believe the younger Imlach actually started the game for the Leafs, taking the night’s opening center-ice face off against Montreal’s legendary captain, Jean Beliveau. (Imlach only played two more games in his NHL career, one that season and another the next year, the season the Leafs last won a Cup. Interestingly, I don’t think Brent Imlach ever signed a pro contract. He was an amateur call-up, I believe, who later went on to get his education while playing Canadian university hockey…)

In any event, we can understand Wilson’s decision to give young Reimer his shot to perform in his own backyard. The Leafs lost, but listen, the Leafs owe Reimer a lot. The kid saved what seemed destined to be a wreck of a 2010-’11 season. His fine play in the second half of last season saved Wilson’s job and gave Burke a longer honeymoon with fans. And it so happened that Saturday’s game against the Jets marked precisely a calendar year since he was first called up to the Leafs to play against the Senators on January 1, 2011.

But beyond the “local” coming home angle, we need to understand something: Reimer is the number-one guy, full stop. The Leafs signed him to a new contract before the current season got underway. While they are not paying him outlandish money, they certainly are paying him well for a young goalie who didn’t have a lot just yet on his NHL resume heading into this season.

But they are indeed paying him as a young number-one, and he played last season and early this year like a number-one. Most organizations don’t believe that a guy should lose their job because of an injury. So even though The Monster played some good hockey in the last two weeks before Reimer returned from the whiplash issue, the Leafs were (and are) clearly committed to Reimer. No player should be judged prematurely coming off a concussion, or concussion-type injury. Recent history tells us things take time.

Would I have liked to see Gustavsson get a start here or there recently? Yes. I think he “deserved” it, but as I’ve posted here many times before, the best thing for Monster is if he can find a new home next season, somewhere where he may feel more welcome. I’m not suggesting he has played enough, or well enough consistently, to demand a number-one goaltender contract somewhere else. But I’m not sure he and Allaire are a good fit—though everyone would deny it. I just sense that, while he has talent, for sure, he may need to go somewhere else to see it develop to its full potential.

To me, it’s clear Burke and Wilson are tying themselves to Reimer, and I can’t argue with that. He is the guy that will play the bulk of the games. That’s what Burke and Wilson want to see, and they will give him every opportunity to keep the job. And we should keep in mind that Reimer was not a Burke ”guy”; that is, he was drafted by the previous administration. Like most GM’s, Burke seems to like his own guys—the players he signs, drafts or trades for—but winning is more important to him than his pride. So he and Wilson clearly believe Reimer is the right guy for the job. They see something in him, and so do I. I not only like and appreciate the young man’s personality, humility and demeanor, but I think he has the kind of “mental” make-up, as best we can assess from the “outside”, that will stand him in good stead during the inevitable highs and lows of a future playoff run. (Felix Potvin and Curtis Joseph both had the ability to bounce back after bad goals and difficult games. I see the same potential in Reimer.)

I like Gustavsson, and I’ve said so many times here. But Reimer’s the guy. And that’s the goalie we’re going to see play a lot in Toronto, even if he has some tough stretches- and whether fans agree or not.

A quick question about Kessel and Phaneuf

2011-12-30T21:30:00.004-05:00

There is no question that the Leafs have been entertaining squad through the now almost completed first half of the 2011-’12 NHL season. They banked a lot of important points in the standings early in the season—points that should come in handy down the road if they aspire to make the Eastern Conference playoffs.

And there is no doubt that two of the guys who have been largely responsible for the “turnaround” in Leaf fortunes this season are Dion Phaneuf and Phil Kessel.

Yet, I have a question today for those who visit here and who follow the Leaf fortunes closely: For all the excitement generated by the play of these aforementioned key Maple Leafs—and recognizing the kudos they have received for their largely stellar play this season—are we missing something?

What I mean is there is another side to their play, I think. Let me give an example. About two weeks or so into the current season, Leaf coach Ron Wilson declared something along the lines of…”Phaneuf is the best defenseman in the league right now, and it’s not even close…”. Now, hyperbole is not uncommon among professional coaches in any sport, particularly if they want to pump up their team or help to hype certain individual players for a major award and such things. (Usually this occurs of course when a player is not on their way to an arbitration hearing…)

While ever-guarded with the local media in Toronto, Wilson is indeed prone to at least the occasional such cheer-leading outburst. We all recall when, during pre-season in the fall of 2010, he declared the Leaf power-play to be “scary good”. Now, the power play has been many things during Wilson’s tenure here, but “scary good” it has rarely been.

In fairness, Phaneuf was playing very well at the time of Wilson's comment, and even Dion's detractors would have been hard-pressed to not see that he was playing well at both ends of the ice. But as the season has worn on, I just sense that Phaneuf—who often plays 25 and more minutes a night on a very young Leaf rearguard group— is not commanding the ice as he was earlier on. His mistakes seem more frequent and he is not a huge offensive threat most nights. He will make the big hit on occasion, yes, and that may be enough to make him a somewhat feared guy amongst opposing NHL forwards. But I’d be hard-pressed to say he is “the best” in the league these days, or even necessarily in the top ten of NHL defensemen.

Phaneuf is a minus 1 on the season. The key guy who went the other way in the huge deal with the Flames, Ian White (now with the Wings), is plus 25 thus far. White plays on a better team, clearly, and plus/minus is but one gauge of a player’s effectiveness, but it does tell a bit of a story.

As for Kessel, I know we all love his dashing style, and how he and Lupul have lit things up this season. Kessel is a game-breaker, one of the most dangerous guys with the puck in the game at the moment. He plays an up-tempo game, to be sure and can make plays at high speed that make you wonder how he just did that.

But while I’m not a numbers guy, for an elite winger with 43 points already this season, shouldn’t he be better than a plus 1 on the year? It seems to me that more and more lately, as he makes his eye-popping rushes, just as often as he makes a nice play that turns into something, he is losing the puck at the other team’s blueline—thus creating an odd man rush going the other way.

This is not to nitpick about two guys who seem to be giving everything they have for the Leafs. I just wonder if some of you are seeing what I’m seeing.

If not, fair enough. If so, is it an issue, or doesn’t it matter in the broader context of what both guys, Kessel and Phaneuf, are bringing to the table most nights?

If the Leafs need to get better (and they do), who gets moved?

2011-12-29T22:30:00.010-05:00

At this time of year, people are busy, stressed and moving about visiting family and friends. So you may well have missed some recent stories here that might be of interest. Here are some links:

-Bozak’s ongoing maturation

-Jake Gardiner’s progress

-Thoughts on the Wilson extension

-The language issue in Montreal

-Todd Bertuzzi and hockey hypocrisy

-The only “Christmas” Leaf in history

-Who are the Leafs really fighting with for a playoff spot?

After the OT loss in Carolina, we’re soon going to reach the half-way mark in the NHL schedule. That is usually a reasonable time to make an assessment as to how any given NHL team is doing—and what they might need to consider to get a bit better (or a lot better) down the stretch.

But we’re not at the 41-game mark just yet, so my thought today is not about a full-scale assessment of the Leaf squad. It is simply this: if we accept the reality that a) the team needs to get better to ensure itself a playoff spot and b) getting better will necessitate adding players from outside the Leaf system (i.e. the “answer” is not right in front of us already)—then, who do we actually move, when push comes to shove?

And here’s my point. Leaf fans—while often harshly critical and impatient during actual Leaf games—also love their players. No one (including Burke) would consider dealing the obvious “stars”, like Lupul, Kessel, Phaneuf and Reimer, of course. They are Leaf cornerstones and not going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

After stealing him from Anaheim, Burke would never move the young phenom in the making, Jake Gardiner. And on a team that is still very young and struggles at the back end at times, I think it would be foolhardy to move Gunnarsson, who remains one of their smartest and steadiest overall performers despite his occasional miscues.

People love Grabovski (who was so good last season and seems to be playing well of late) and the heart that a player like Boyce shows when he gets a chance.

Are you going to move Bozak, who is not even in his prime yet?

My point simply is, in most cases, you have to give something to get something. You’re not going to move a third or fourth-line guy that Leaf fans don’t like to get a second-line pivot, eh? It doesn’t work that way.

So what is your thought—is there a piece (Schenn?) that Burke has to deal to make the overall team puzzle even better?

Or does the improvement come from within, with an infusion of skill from someone like Kadri, who is showing the brass something these days?

We all understand that the Leafs have depth on the blueline, though they are being stretched right now with the injuries to Komisarek and Liles. But I’m one of those old-timers who hates to give up defensemen—especially promising young defenseman.

No one thinks Burke will sell the future just to, as he has put it in the past, squeak into the playoffs only to get swept. But he’s a competitive guy, as is Wilson, and they absolutely want—and I would argue really need—to make the playoffs this coming spring.

I’ve said here before, in this weak Eastern Conference, I think they should—and can. But for me, that is as much a function of how middlish the opposition is in the East (outside of three or four teams) than how outstanding the Leafs are just yet. They are better than they were, for sure. And they are entertaining most nights and downright exciting at times.

But like most teams nowadays, they aren’t perfect. And like most Leaf fans, while I like the guys on this squad, is this team, as they are presently constituted, good enough to not just squeak into the playoffs, but have an impact once they get there?

If not, what’s your solution? Improvement from within, or do we need to make moves? And if so, who goes?

Send your thoughts along.

Phaneuf will be fighting a difficult captain’s legacy down the road

2011-12-28T21:00:00.003-05:00

My sense is that the vast majority of Maple Leaf fans are very satisfied with Dion Phaneuf’s play and leadership as captain of the blue and white. Despite a loss in Florida Tuesday night, the team is certainly in line with expectations, and Phaneuf, for the most part, has seen a steady guy at the back end, playing big minutes every night. His remains a fan favorite.

We all understand that being captain of this franchise has always been an honour and Phaneuf, from what we can see, has indeed established himself, at a still young age, as the kind of captain that Burke and Wilson envisioned when they traded for him and then ultimately gave him the coveted Leaf "C" in the summer of 2010.

His progress was slowed last season by injury, and his first full year here was marked by some over-anxiousness and a number of failed offensive forays that seemed to lead to more chances for the opposition than for the Leafs.

But this season, Phaneuf, at 26, has seemingly rounded into the kind of playing form that was the hallmark of his very early years with the Calgary Flames when he was good enough to be voted an end-of-season All-Star. He is a good enough skater that he can get to the right spots, has a big shot and can make some great outlet passes. And, he has enough physicality that opposing forwards need to be aware of his presence on the ice.

So right now (besides the trade with Calgary being a decisive “win” for the Leafs) he is delivering very much what fans—and management— hoped he would provide.

Looking ahead, though, he will be fighting a legacy that has not been a good one. I’m referring specifically to the way a variety of Maple Leaf captains have ended their often-illustrious careers as members of the treasured blue and white franchise.

The history of Leaf captains is a litany of great names from the past. This is not surprising as the Leafs have long been one of the NHL’s proudest franchises and their captains were always well-thought of, hard-working guys who were generally leaders on and off the ice. For those who know a bit (or a lot) of the history of the franchise, the names stand on their own merits: Charlie Conacher, Syl Apps, Ted Kennedy and Sid Smith (left) were just some of the wonderful names from a golden era in Maple Leaf history. Then George Arstrong took over the captaincy in the mid-1950s and he kept the “C” right through until he retired (for the first time) after the 1968-’69 season. He was the undisputed leader of a team that won those four Cups from 1962 to 1967.

From there, however, the letter has been somewhat cursed when it comes to those who have worn it in Toronto. One of the most popular Leafs of the successful early and mid-1960s era was Dave Keon. He took over from “The Chief”, Armstrong, even though Army, as he was also called, returned from retirement on a couple of occasions to play until the end of the 1970-’71 season. Keon carried the leadership role through until the end of the 1974-’75 season, but after 15 distinguished seasons with the Leafs, then-owner Harold Ballard washed his hands of Keon and did not even offer him a contract to return for a 16^th season. Keon went on to play in the WHA (his only option, as he could not sign with another NHL team since the Leafs owned his rights in those very restrictive old days). It was a disappointing end to a marvelous Maple Leaf career and a harbinger of things to come for future Leaf captains.

Darryl Sittler was the next Leaf captain, and he was a popular choice because of his hard-driving style. He teamed with another young Leaf, Lanny McDonald, to form one of the better lines in the NHL through the rest of the 1970s, with either Errol Thompson or Tiger Williams on their flank.

But as popular as Sittler was, he butted heads with Punch Imlach when the architect of the successful Leaf teams of the 1960s re-surfaced in Toronto as General Manager for a second time. As ridiculous as it sounds now, Imlach didn’t want Leaf players participating, for example, in a popular Hockey Night in Canada exhibition called “Showdown”, I think it was called. Sittler and other Leafs balked at being told what to do. Things went south from there. Imlach couldn’t deal Sittler because he had a no-trade clause, as I recall, so he moved most of the guys around him instead, notably his close friend, McDonald.

Eventually, Sittler’s relationship with Ballard also deteriorated, such that he ultimately tore the “C” off his own sweater and was ultimately traded to the Philadelphia Flyers.

Rick Vaive, a young winger obtained in the Tiger Williams-to-Canucks trade, was the next guy on the firing line. He shone at first, with an un-heard of (in Toronto) three consecutive 50+ goal seasons while wearing the letter. While the Leafs were going through a difficult time, Vaive was a standout with a big shot and a physical style that fans appreciated. But he too had his difficulties, and when he slept in and missed a workout (I think John Brophy was the Leaf coach at the time) he saw the “C” taken away. He still played for the Leafs, but he was eventually dealt to Chicago along with Steve Thomas and Bob McGill to Al Secord and Eddie Olczyk. That ended yet another Leaf captain’s tenure in a rather unceremonious fashion.

Rob Ramage, one of the original “Baby Bulls” with the WHA Birmingham Bulls back in 1979, was the next Leaf captain. He came over in a trade and was immediately named captain, a move which caught some people by surprise at the time. Unfortunately, Ramage’s time with the Leafs was short-lived. He lasted only two seasons in Toronto, never really playing to his earlier reputation with other organizations.

Wendel Clark was the deserving ‘next guy up’ to wear the important letter, starting in the 1991-’92 season. When Pat Burns took over behind the Leaf bench the following season, the Leafs took off, on the backs of a solid “no-name” defense along with Clark, newcomer Doug Gilmour and a host of role players who played those roles to the hilt.

As popular as Clark was (and he may well have been the most popular Leaf captain in the modern era) for his pugnacious style, his willingness to drop the gloves and a blazing wrist shot, then GM Cliff Fletcher thought the Leafs weren’t good enough to win a Cup after they lost in the semi-finals for the second year in a row in the spring of 1994. So that summer, a huge trade saw Clark and a defenseman I loved, Sylvain Lefebvre, dealt to Quebec for Mats Sundin. It was, long-term, a great trade for Toronto, but it killed the great chemistry that that particular Leaf team had, and abruptly ended the beloved Clark’s time with the blue and white. (He was to return twice more, but never as successfully as in his first incarnation with the Leafs…)

Doug Gilmour was the natural successor to Clark. He had been every bit a true leader because of his remarkable work ethic in his first three seasons in Toronto and he really earned the leadership designation. Unfortunately, the Leafs began to stagnate and slid a bit, despite the efforts of Fletcher to re-build the team to its earlier levels of success.

Eventually Gilmour grew frustrated in Toronto, and ended up asking for a trade. He was dealt to New Jersey, ending one of the great modern-day love affairs with the Maple leaf fans. Another captain was gone.

After Gilmour, Sundin, who had been hoping to receive the honor, was indeed named captain and while it took him a bit of time to grow into the role, he handled it with grace for more than 10 years. All the while he was a powerful forward who scored some huge goals in his Leaf career, including during two long playoff runs, in 1999 and 2002 especially.

But even Sundin saw his tenure end in a controversial fashion just a few short years ago. The Leafs (and Fletcher, who found his was back in the GM’s chair for a second time, like Imlach before him) wanted Sundin to waive his no-trade clause, but the veteran preferred to finish his time in Toronto and not be used as a rental player. I had no problem with his decision, but I realize many Leaf fans were unhappy with his not allowing himself to be dealt to allow the Leafs to acquire some potentially valuable assets. What added insult to injury was when Mats returned to play the next year- with the Canucks. In fairness, the Leafs did not want him back, so what was he supposed to do? (Didn't Ron Wilson say something like..."what did Sundin ever win...?")

But the bottom line was that, once again, a Leaf captain, and a very good one at that, had seen his time as team leader come to an uneasy—and unpleasant—end.

So there it is. Since George Armstrong, seven guys have worn the captain’s “C” before Phaneuf, and each has seen his tenure marked by an unsettling end. And each was a very talented guy and very well thought-of.

For his part, Phaneuf is young and at the peak of his game. Right now, there is no reason to think his future is anything but rosy in Toronto. Yet history can be very difficult to overcome.

Will the Leafs ever regret trading Kris Vertseeg?

2011-12-27T22:45:00.004-05:00

A few quick comments on the game in Florida…

-I tend to discount the first game after the Christmas break. We’re expecting guys to be sharp but most of these games are pretty sloppy and this one certainly was. The Panthers gave the puck away a ton. The Leafs often carried the play but had their own coverage and turnover issues. Florida is not a super-talented team and were missing Weiss, but I can’t imagine that they’ve played that poorly too often this season—otherwise they wouldn’t be where they are in the Eastern Conference standings.

-Did you like that poke-check save by Gustavsson on the two-on-one while the Leafs were on the power play in the third period? The Leafs came right back and scored to make it 4-3. It was a game-changer at the time and gave the Leafs a chance at another comeback win. (Both goals he gave up came off odd deflections…hard to fault him on those.)

-I know we’ve said this before, but can Grabovski’s two-goal night be a trigger for some welcome production from the talented center, who is due for some offensive breaks?

-I honestly thought Theodore was finished years ago. After his superlative early-career work (and MVP) with the Habs, it just seems as though he never found that consistent groove in his game. He has bounced around but appears, for now, to have found a home in Florida. He certainly made some big saves against the Leafs when the game was in doubt.

Right off the top, I realize that, to some Leaf fans, Brian Burke can do no wrong. I understand that. He has absolutely improved this team after a disastrous stretch where the Leafs went from being a perennial (and serious) contender for many years under Pat Quinn to a less than mediocre team for as many years after he lost the GM portfolio.

Fans love Burke’s his bluster, his bravado and some think pretty much every move he makes is pure genius.

I’m not of that school of thought, but those who drop by here regularly know that I respect Burke as a good hockey man, just not as someone who is necessarily head and shoulders above many other outstanding hockey GM’s who have his credentials—and maybe even then some. Holland, Poile, Tallon, Lombardi, Lamoriello (setting aside his penchant for firing coaches and the Kovalchuk signing in an otherwise brilliant career), Chiarelli and Doug Wilson are some of the other current GM’s I believe have had an impressive NHL career as GM’s.

Burke has built, as I’ve mentioned here many times, a young, fast and deep talent pool in Toronto and that’s all to the good. How much more he will be able to do to put the team in a position to contend for a Cup only time will tell. But now in his fourth year at the helm, he has brought to the team to respectability and one that is very entertaining most nights- even when they fall behind early and are scrambling around a bit.

We all know he has made major moves in his time here, the most obvious perhaps being the trades for Kessel and of course Phaneuf/Aulie. The Kessel deal will always be a part of Leaf lore (and of much debate), given the Bruins won a Cup last season with young Seguin and the impression the young defenseman, Hamilton (the other big part of the deal), is making in junior hockey this season. But my sense from the many comments posted on this site is that most Leaf fans are thrilled with Kessel and would not un-do that deal.

The Phaenuf/Aulie trade was a stunner and is paying huge dividends for the Leafs—and likely will for years to come. (To be fair, I should point out that Ian White, who went to the Flames in that transaction and has now landed in Detroit, is a team-leading plus 24 so far this season, so the Leafs didn’t exactly give up a bum…)

For all the other deals and acquisitions, large and small, there is one that I am wondering if the Leafs will (though never publicly) some day regret. And that is the trade of Kris Versteeg last season to the Flyers. In return, you will recall that Toronto received a first-round draft choice (which turned out to be Stuart Pearcy, a talented junior player) and third-rounder (Josh Leivo).

By all accounts those picks could be fine NHL players some day. And Burke certainly got more from the Flyers (that first and third) than Philly did in sending Versteeg to the Panthers (Philadelphia received a second and a third) this past summer.

My question is: will the picks the Leafs grabbed for Versteeg be ready to contribute as he could have, by the time the Leafs are ready for a Cup run at say, the end of the 2013 season? Those young men will be 20, and Versteeg will be in his prime, turning 27 in May of that year.

Versteeg is a rare player. I say that because, as I write this, he is 25 and is now already with his 5^th NHL organization. He was drafted by the Bruins but traded to Chicago before he ever played in Beantown. He was a “minor” star, to borrow Seinfeld reference, with the Hawks. There, he was a significant role player, an important third-line-type guy who helped them win their Cup in the spring of 2010.

Yet, he has bounced around since. The Hawks had to move some players (and payroll) and Versteeg was one of the guys who had to leave Chicago. He cost the Leafs only Viktor Stalberg, who has seemingly had only a marginal impact in Chicago.

For his part, the versatile Versteeg has continued his nomadic NHL existence.

He’s already played 50 playoff games in his career. Again, a Cup on his resume, all those playoff games and five NHL teams—all by the age of 25. Why the guy has moved so often is a mystery to me, but he didn’t seem to be a fit here for what Burke and Wilson were looking for.

For those who may not be following his current progress, Vertseeg has put up some nice numbers with the Panthers this season. By the end of Tuesday night’s game against the Leafs, he had scored 17 goals with 38 points overall. As surprisingly, he is a plus 15. Against the Leafs, he was caught running around on Phaneuf’s marker, but also scored one himself and had some great opportunities to score while killing penalties. (Those simple "numbers" don’t always tell the full story, but they suggest that he is certainly contributing significantly to the rather stunning turnaround for the Panthers under first-year coach Kevin Dineen so far this season.)

Recognizing the “fit” issue in Toronto, I just wonder if the Leafs will ever quietly wish they had a guy just like Versteeg—definitely an active and energetic “top-9” forward, maybe more than that—when they are ready to challenge for the Cup. He plays the game with an edge, kills penalties, can score, and has invaluable playoff experience.

Sounds like precisely the kind of player they will be seeking in a trade someday—and someone they already had right in front of them.

Some pros and cons regarding the Wilson extension

2011-12-26T21:00:00.012-05:00

Since I posted here almost a year ago that I assumed Ron Wilson would receive a contract extension soon after the conclusion of the 2010-’11 NHL season, I should not be surprised he has ultimately landed just that.

VLM readers will know that I posted here recently that my strong preference, as a long-time Leaf person, was to see the situation dealt with at the end of this current season. Yes, Wilson would then have been the classic “lame duck” coach, but he hadn’t exactly earned an extension, in my mind, based on the alleged “meritocracy” that the Leafs talk about constantly these days. So my feeling was, if Ron was miffed and felt disrespected, well, he could always take his bat and ball and go elsewhere as a free-agent next summer.

And if that occurred, there would be no shortage of capable, qualified people (Carlyle, sure, and Dallas Eakins, but many others as well…) who would love this job—and may well be even better suited to it—and this market—than the often acerbic Wilson.

Nonetheless, the people whose views actually matter have made a decision—no doubt with a deal cooked up over the past few weeks and maybe even signed weeks ago—that Wilson is the man for the Leafs going forward.

Again, it’s not a move I endorse (as if that matters a wit…) at this moment, because it could just as easily have been done in, say, May—but it is what it is.

With that as a backdrop, here are a few thoughts on why this may be just swell for the Leafs—or not so much:

The good:

Wilson is like anyone else. He likes to be appreciated and shown respect for the work he does. The guy is a quality coach, and has been for many years.

This ends the longstanding (albeit mild) awkwardness that Wilson—hired before Burke as part of the new Leaf era—was not really Burke’s choice as Leaf coach four summers back. Cliff Fletcher made that call, as the so-called “interim GM”. Now it is clear that Burke has made a decision independent of being hamstrung by the appointment of his predecessor.

The players—not that they seemed all too consumed by their concern for the coach’s future security—will now know with certainty Wilson is the guy driving the bus for the next few years. Any temptation to “tune him out” because he will be in his 5^th season behind the Leaf bench next fall (four years being acknowledged in some quarters as the time many coaches began to “lose” their squad…) will likely be pushed aside by the reality that Wilson is definitely in charge.

The players are indisputably playing hard for him.

Some players have seen their game improve under Wilson. While still a flawed defenseman, Phaneuf seems to be playing better than when he first got here. Wilson’s patience with Bozak is paying off. Lupul has certainly thrived under Wilson's "system". The un-heralded Tim Brent was a revelation last season under Wilson. Other examples can be cited, too, of young players who are clearly developing under his tutelage.

Continuity can be a very good thing. Constant change behind the bench tends to send the message that the front office doesn’t really have a plan, and even if they do, they can make decisions out of a sense of panic (see Canadiens, Montreal…). This signing reinforces that the brass has a plan and Wilson is the guy who they trust to implement what the architects have put in place. If you're a player and you don’t like it, get the hell out…let us show you the door.

Wilson has a burning desire to win a Stanley Cup, the only thing really missing on an outstanding coaching resume. He comes from great hockey family, and while he often seems edgy and unhappy in his daily media interactions, you have to believe it would be a dream come true to win a Cup as the coach of the Maple Leafs. This contract gives him that chance.

The not-so-good

As I mentioned above, Burke could easily have waited until the end of the season. Based on his work with the Leafs the past three and a half seasons, I’m guessing few if any NHL GM’s would have been sitting on Wilson’s doorstep at 12:01 AM the morning after his contract expired to offer him a four-year deal. The Leafs had time on their side. (Burke has now claimed Wilson would be hired by another team in no time. Hmmm...guys who have actually won a Cup, like Hartley and Crawford, are without NHL employment. Hitchcock, another respected Cup winner, was too, until recently. I'm not sure Wilson automatically, at his age, gets another gig all that quickly...)

The Leafs are surely the only organization with deep pockets that has actually given a guy a new contract—and a raise—after missing the playoffs three years in a row. (Yes, the Predators have kept Trotz all these years, but they have continued to improve under his guidance in the very tough Western Conference. Plus, the franchise has done it all on a shoestring, a testament to Trotz's coaching abilities…)

Most coaches who come into a new situation, even with a mediocre line-up, kick-start a surge in performance. (Look at what Dineen is doing in Florida this season. You cannot claim that is a great line-up, eh? And MacLean in Ottawa; how is that happening?) That clearly did not happen under Wilson the past three seasons, even in a parity-filled Eastern Conference that is not exactly stellar from top to bottom. The organization has seemingly hung its hat on Wilson’s short-term “success” in 2011-’12—success that might not have seemed as impressive had they not won both games before the Christmas break.

Yes, Wilson can be a funny guy and people seem to love his use of Twitter (and I'd like to see him relax a bit), but chances are, backed by the security of a new contract, he will be just as edgy, arrogrant and acerbic as ever if and when the Leafs struggle. We now get to see his media act for a few more seasons.

The penalty kill won’t get better simply because the coach has a new contract.

People talk about “all” the injuries the Leafs have played through this season that Wilson has had to coach around. Hey, forget last season, when the Leafs were mercifully spared anything like what many of their Eastern Conference foes had to deal with, injury-wise (and some of them made the playoffs ahead of the Leafs…).

Has anyone actually compared the Leaf injury situation this season with what some other teams are facing? The Pens without Crosby, et al? The Habs without Markov? The Rangers without Staal. Ottawa without Alfredsson. Yes, the Leafs have had injuries, but nothing truly major. The Islanders were down to, what, their fifth-string goalie? Key guys, like Lupul, Kessel, Kulemin and Phaneuf have been healthy for the Leafs. In short, Wilson has had few serious, long-term roster issues.

Honestly, this should be an easy team to coach. Why do I say that? They are young, eager to learn and get better. Some are unproven at the NHL level. Many are fighting for—or playing for—NHL jobs. That is an ideal type of team to be at the helm of. Even the “stars” are young enough that they have to listen to the coach. Motivation should not difficult when you haven’t won anything, haven’t proven anything and need to perform (in some cases) just to stay in the league.

Here’s perhaps the most important point: if I was in charge of MLSE, I would want to find the absolute best coach out there—just like former Leaf owner Harold Ballard wanted to bring Scotty Bowman to town in the summer of 1979 after Bowman had won four consecutive Cups with Montreal. And like when Fletcher went out and stole Pat Burns from the Habs in 1992. And just like MLSE went out and courted the guy they thought was the best GM available—Brian Burke.

The Leafs should be able to attract, hire and pay for the best coach in the world. Is Wilson that guy? If he isn’t, why have they just committed to a new long-term deal? They should be able to bring on board one of the very best coaches in the world, just like Read Madrid went out and lured Jose Mourinho, a proven winner.

At the end of the day, it’s MLSE’s money (though at some point the fans pay for it…). So if they want to tie themselves to a coach who may not be the best guy for the job, well, it’s easy to change course at any point down the road.

For now, it’s one thing we won’t have to talk about in Leafland for a while, though the next time the team gives up a goal on the penalty-kill, or loses a couple of games, who will be the first to say…”Why did we re-sign that guy again….?"

As the NHL looks to “clean up” hockey and concerns over Sidney Crosby, why, I ask again, is Todd Bertuzzi still playing?

2011-12-25T21:15:00.002-05:00

Maybe I’m just one of those people that won’t let go. But as I see the NHL twisting itself into knots looking for reasons to suspend players (to ensure more in the way of player safety, I understand), I can’t help but think back to a time of hypocrisy in our great game. And that is the incident involving the Vancouver Canucks and Todd Bertuzzi just a few short years ago.

We all know the story. A relative NHL “nobody”, Steve Moore, had the temerity to hit then Canuck captain Markus Naslund with what was seen by some as a borderline "dirty" hit. The Canucks vowed revenge, according various accounts—both privately and publicly.

The next time Colorado and Moore were in town, Moore accepted the challenge to fight, surely ending the need for any additional "retribution", one would have thought.

But that was not enough for Bertuzzi. What then ensued was one of the most disgusting things anyone can imagine happening in a hockey game. Hockey followers of that time well remember the awful incident.

Moore has never played again. I’m not even sure if he has regained his health completely. I believe some sort of civil action is still ongoing in the legal system in Canada, such as it is.

And after what turned out to be a pretty short suspension (the NHL counted the “lost season” due to the lockout as part of Bertuzzi’s punishment) he was back and playing—and making more millions in the NHL.

Heck, Hockey Canada, that supposed beacon of what is right and good in amateur sport, even selected Bertuzzi to “represent” Canada (what a role model for youngsters, eh?) at the 2006 Winter Olympics.

I don’t discount what the NHL is trying to do now, and what Brendan Shanahan is endeavoring to accomplish through some stiff suspensions to send a message that “head hits” of various descriptions are serious business and won’t be tolerated. That's all good.

But it’s hard for me to take all this seriously on a certain level, when a guy who was a “superstar” at the time, Bertuzzi, received comparably little punishment back in 2004- and is still making a living while the “fourth-line guy” that he injured has never played again.

Some Canuck players and coaches have gone on to other hockey jobs and/or media careers. Canuck execs of that time are all well employed, some with the Leafs.

The incident is all but forgotten, and everyone, from Gary Bettman on, has gone on with their "successful" lives.

But wait a minute. Where was the league to help Steve Moore?

Yes, I’m glad they are now trying to stem the tide of hits from behind and dirty hits to the head. I’m not sure you can ever rid the game of all head shots, because there are times that guys move a little and what would have been a fair hit becomes a dangerous one. The game is so fast that it is impossible to curb everything, and I think most fans want to maintain the physical nature of the sport. Otherwise, it’s not quite hockey.

But what Bertuzzi did was not physical hockey. It had nothing to do with hockey at all. It was brutal cowardice. I’m not sure even a two-season suspension—fully served—would have been enough, because there is never really true “justice” when dealing with acts like that. The NHL, though, didn’t even do that. Since he didn’t hurt a “star”, the league basically ran away from its leadership role. And we’ve all pretended since like it never really happened.

I wonder what Bertuzzi would get if he did the same thing now? And if someone did the same thing to, say, Sidney Crosby, would that player ever be allowed on the ice again?

I realize I may be a lone voice on this one, but I would enjoy hearing the views of others.

Remembering Toronto’s only (to my knowledge) “Noel”

2011-12-24T21:00:00.003-05:00

The last two years, on December 25, I’ve taken advantage of the mini-break in the NHL schedule to write a bit about one former Leaf who had an unusual name, so I may as well continue the tradition this year.

It’s not a name we hear very often—but one that fits so perfectly on this special day in the calendar for many of us: Christmas.

The player is Noel Price. “Noel”, of course, is the French-language word for “Christmas”. Even those who maybe took one-year of “basic” French (is it still called that—I’m out of touch…) will know that word.

In any event, the only guy named Noel that I am aware of (that played for the Leafs, in any event) is indeed Noel Price. Price was a defenseman who spent some time with the Toronto organization in the mid to later 1950s. He also played briefly with, appropriately, the Montreal Canadiens (though he wasn’t a Quebec native) in the early 1960s. Personally, I remember him best for his time with the expansion Pittsburgh Penguins in the late 1960s.

The only other “Noel” that I can remember playing in the NHL in those days was Noel Picard, a rough and tumble rearguard with the Habs (Picard was a Quebec native) , and later with the St. Louis Blues. As I recall, Price was more of an offensive defenseman, while Picard was much more a classic stay-at-home defender who could deliver the occasional big hit.

Relatively-speaking, the Leafs haven’t had a ton of French-Canadian players on their roster through the years, and very few in the ‘50s and ‘60s when I was a kid. (I remember distinctly when tiny forward Guy Trottier joined the Leafs during the 1970-’71 season. It caught my eye, in part because he was a veteran minor-league who got a late start on his NHL career, but mostly because he was (at least I assumed he was, at the time) French-Canadian.

In any event, Noel is a pretty rare name, at least to most people, and certainly it was/is an unusual one in Maple Leaf lore. But there was at least one.

If anyone knows of another, by all means send your recollections along.

In the meantime, I extend my warm wishes for a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah or all the best as you celebrate whichever religious tradition (if any) that you might observe.

Bozak takes another step in his maturation as Leafs win on the Island

2011-12-23T22:15:00.004-05:00

How many draws did Bozak win on Friday night, like maybe his first ten or so? It was a small window into the impact that the young pivot has had more often than not in games so far during the 2011-’12 season. One night it’s taking on the task of checking a good offensive center on the other team; another it's being on the ice in the dying seconds while protecting a lead, or scoring a key goal during a Leaf comeback.

Against the Islanders, it was not only his work on face-offs but also his sweet play to set up Crabb for a huge short-handed goal in second period to restore the Leafs’ two-goal lead—one they would never relinquish.

That play worked on a number of levels, besides being another example of Bozak’s often inspired (and more assertive) play with the Leafs this season. First, it halted the bleeding on the Leaf penalty kill, after the Islanders had knocked home a power-play marker to make it a one-goal game early in the second period. But maybe more importantly, it gave the Leafs back that two-goal cushion—and deflated the Islanders while boosting the Leafs’ psyche.

I posted on Bozak not long ago (click here) because I see in his development something we have no doubt all witnessed a number of times over the years with different young Leafs (and players from other organizations, too, of course).

That is, most players—those who aren’t in classic elite superstar mold, those rare guys who seem to slip seamlessly into a first-line role offensively or a top pairing on the blueline—need to broaden their game pretty quickly. If they are ”goal scorers”, for example, the coaching staff will often demand that they work on defense. (Kadri being a classic current example in Toronto.) It’s not enough to simply rely forever on what made you stand out in junior hockey. Players may have to get bigger, stronger and quicker in most cases to keep up here. They are expected to play hard in all zones of the ice and cut down on costly turnovers. All this is drilled into them so that, ultimately, they can thrive and become a sound all-around player in the best league in the world.

Bottom line, it generally takes time to keep meeting the challenge of higher expectations, broader coaching demands and the relentless reality of the outstanding everyday opposition they face pretty much every night at this level. It takes time for a player to achieve that balance of confidence, maturity—along with the wisdom acquired through the ups and downs of extensive game-experience—that is required to play to their potential.

For Bozak, it has meant (after a surprising and promising rookie season out of college) a somewhat un-fulfilling sophomore season a year ago, when he was a square peg pushed prematurely into a round hole on the Leaf “number-one” line—such as it was last season.

But now in year three, he is an imperfect player, yes, but one showing he has picked up some important things along the way. Importantly for me, he has shown a knack for not getting down on himself and just working hard to get better. And better he has gotten, in ways large and small.

I like his all-around game, and this is one guy I feel good about trumpeting, because I have said here many times (especially last season when he was seen to be struggling, including with an un-impressive plus-minus total) that he had and has more to give. I like his skill, his hands, how he sees the ice, and I like that he did not let the criticism he must have heard last season slow his determination—or his progress.

Pretty much, I like that he is good now and should only get better. He is a young player, like Frattin, who has a higher ceiling than what we are seeing now, and can be an important player when the Leafs are really good.

Warm wishes for a Merry Christmas to all those who have taken the time to visit the “Vintage Leaf Memories” site. I appreciate the many thoughtful comments, your feedback and value your support and the broad readership here. I hope to hear from some of you.

I guess I was wrong about Jake Gardiner

2011-12-22T22:30:00.003-05:00

Just as the 2011-’12 season was kicking off back in early October, I was pretty emphatic here that I thought young Jake Gardiner should start the season in the minors with the Marlies.

My rationale was fairly straightforward. Gardiner had zilch NHL experience, and, at 21 and coming out of college, should have the opportunity to earn all kinds of ice time and gain tremendous experience at the pro level under a good coach in Dallas Eakins.

At the same time, I figured the Leafs already had (at least) 7 other experienced NHL defensemen in Phaneuf and Gunner, Komisarek, Franson, Liles, Aulie and of course the then newly re-signed Luke Schenn.

As much as I believe in training camp being a legitimate platform for a guy to showcase his skills in front of the brass, I didn’t see the point of rushing a youngster when there was simply no need. We could all see Gardiner could skate (seemingly effortlessly—it can’t really be that easy, can it?) but time in the minors, in my observatios over many years, hurts no player.

Yet the Leafs, somewhat surprisingly, did send Aulie down. (Burke has since said publicly that Aulie seemed to come into camp thinking he was already on the team. I’m not sure that was really the case, but regardless, he has spent most of the season with the Marlies or watching the big team from upstairs in the press box.)

And of course we had the early-season kerfuffle whereby Franson was, understandably in my mind, none too pleased with being the odd man out on a Leaf team that wasn’t exactly a Cup contender or super-deep on defense just a few short months before. Meanwhile, Franson had been playing key minutes in the second round of the NHL playoffs for the Predators.

In any event, Gardiner turned enough heads in camp that they felt he had to play. And since that time, he has done nothing to dissuade the view that he should be playing at the NHL level.

So, as it’s always good to acknowledge one’s errors, let me simply state that I was apparently wrong about Gardiner. He has lapped up (and earned) big minutes under Wilson, and some nights has probably been the team’s best defenseman. Now, he still makes mistakes, as all defensemen do. And, I remain concerned that when the games become much more physical down the stretch (and in the playoffs, if we can “blue sky” a bit), that will be another challenge to overcome for him.

But the youngster can skate, and it’s hard to imagine a young player be any more composed that Gardiner, eh?

Whether the long NHL schedule will causes the seemingly requisite “hitting the wall” at some point this season, I have no idea. (What do college kids in the U.S. play these days, 40 games a season maybe?) But he seems to be coping nicely, despite a few less-than-perfect defensive performances of late and a healthy scratch against Buffalo Thursday night.

To be clear, I did not make my early season assessment simply on the backs of, say, the early ‘80s Leafs who rushed Benning, Boimistruck and McGill into the line-up before they were 20. Yes, like many of you, I’ve seen the Leaf organization in particular bring in much-heralded players (be they goalies, forwards or defensemen) over the years, only to see them leave town—or leave the game entirely, not having achieved the success they probably deserved or certainly could have had with better coaching, a minimum of patience and not been rushed too soon.

That’s a factor in my thinking, sure, but primarily I thought the team had at least six guys who had earned their spurs for a lot longer at the NHL level than Gardiner, and I felt he needed to do so as well before so quickly joining the big club.

The only real reason the Franson kerfuffle was sorted out is that Komisarek went down with an injury. While his return is not imminent, it will beg the question if and when the veteran defenseman is ready to play: who sits? Schenn, who leads the team in hits? The highly-paid Komisarek, who has a physical edge in his game? Franson again?

In any event, Leaf fans can only hope that Gardiner simply continues to thrive playing key minutes as a top-four defenseman with the Leafs. What would be unfortunate is if he hits a serious wall at any point next year, say, and the team suddenly decides it would be prudent to send him to the Marlies for a while to "re-gain his confidence" (as we often hear about young players who are sent down). I’m not saying that couldn’t be a wise approach (it worked with Rod Langway, I recall, another young American defenseman with Montreal in 1978-’79) but not, for me, the ideal.

I would rather a guy be well-cooked in the minors, so that, by the time he arrives, he never has to go back down. As I’ve posted here many times before, I would have been much happier if the organization had done precisely that last season with Kadri. Let him play the entire year with the Marlies, without messing his head with thoughts that he should be or could be in the NHL any minute. But I’ll talk about that situation another time…)

In any event, it looks like they’ve done the right thing for and by Gardiner.

I was wrong. They were right.

The Habs, language sensitivities and an attempt at understanding

2011-12-21T21:15:00.006-05:00

This is not intended to be a “political” column so I have zero interest in engaging in a debate (or frankly even a lengthy discussion!) about the Montreal Canadiens, the local Quebec media and why there is a palpable sense in some quarters that the team needs (or doesn't) a bilingual head coach behind the bench.

This is a site where people can come, drop by, read a few stories about the Leafs and hockey—past and present—and not have their blood pressure jump all of a sudden. And, I‘d like that to continue.

I just thought that I may be in a position, not to explain or defend anything along the above language lines, but simply add a tiny voice to the discussion. You may agree, disagree, and that’s all healthy. I’m happy, as always, to hear your views. It's just that this can be such an emotional subject that I would rather not engage in debate on this occasion in the interest of mutual understanding and respect.

I’ve only lived one year of my life in Montreal/Quebec. (As an aside, that was when I “covered” the Canadiens off and off during the 1978-’79 hockey season for a small English-language radio station.) But more pertinent, perhaps, is that I was born into a family with a strong French-Canadian heritage. There was a religious dimension to that as well, to be sure. But though we weren’t “Quebecers”, my Dad was fiercely proud of his French roots.

One way that this was manifested was in his choice of whom he cheered for in hockey. Now, to be clear, he was also a huge fan of the New York Yankees (with the legendary Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and later DiMaggio and Mantle), as well as and Notre Dame football (going back to Knute Rockne) when both teams had amazing success, so maybe Dad was just a front-runner—I'm still not a hundred per cent certain!

Seriously, though, he really genuinely loved the Montreal Canadiens. I mean he was authentically, deeply passionate about them. Hell, he was born in 1910 so he saw Aurel Joliat (see the classic old photo at left that's been in the family forever), Howie Morenz and goodness-knows who else actually play in person on occasion back in the day. Bill Durnan, the great goaltender. Dad saw him. Butch Bouchard, the tough captain? Saw him play, too. Dad was devout, both about his religious faith (though an imperfect guy he surely was...aren’t we all?) and yes, the Habs.

So when I was really young, in the late 1950s, I knew more about the history of the Montreal Canadiens than just about anything else- and way more than probably any kid should. I struggled with arithmetic, but I could tell you who played on the Montreal Cup teams from 1956-1960. I knew the guys by sight, even though I seldom actually saw Montreal play on television. (Our family was raised in a very small town in Essex County, near Windsor, Ontario, across from Detroit.) Because of our location, we almost always “had” to watch the Leaf games on Saturday evenings on Hockey Night in Canada. That was a point of much consternation in our family, but not for me. At least not once I declared to my Dad (at the age of 4 in 1957, I’m told- click to read how that all came about...) that because he had acknowledged to me that Canada was a free country—apparently I had asked the probing question at a fairly precocious age—I was choosing to be a Maple Leaf fan.

That caused no end of tension throughout my formative years (two older brothers were also rabid Montreal fans…it ever ended in my house) but that’s not really my focus is today. I'm trying to explain, none too clearly, I realize, why the coach being able to speak "french" might still matter in Quebec.

I don’t pretend to have the same insight that someone born in Quebec and who has lived a “Quebecois life” can provide. I don’t have that personal life experience, nor have I experienced that sense of “solitude” that many disenfranchised Quebecers have evidently felt have for many generations.

I do know though, that, from our little French-Canadian hamlet in south-western Ontario, we often had the sense of being an underdog, and at times maybe even looked down upon and marginalized a bit.

Now, I can’t compare this to any other cultural experience and won’t try to here. I simply recall that my Dad, in particular, felt a sort of “kindred-ness”, if I can make up a word, with his hockey team, one that was largely built on the backs of outstanding French-Canadian players. The names are pretty easy for me to toss out off the top of my head: “Butch” Bouchard, Jacques Plante, Bernard (Bernie “Boom Boom”) Geoffrion, Marcel Bonin and Jean Beliveau are just a few of the legendary greats from my early youth, each one a Hall-of-Famer of an all-time Hab great. Geoffrion (seen in action at right against Don Simmons- a future Leaf- and the Bruins) was the first guy to hit 50 goals in a season since the remarkable Rocket Richard, another Hab legend of the '40s and '50s that my Dad adored.

I was raised watching (and hating, but again, that's a story for another day) these tremendous hockey players. I came to understand, perhaps through a biased prism, that Montreal was more than a hockey team, more than a corporate institution. It was more than the players themselves.

They were a team that represented not just local hockey fans, but the entire province of Quebec. Further, they represented Francophones, and to a certain extent (this is where I’m sure it will get slippery for people, I further realize) a kind of religious symbolism, too.

It mattered that the Habs were really good, that they were successful, for sure. But importantly, it mattered that much of the team was French by background. Oh, they had marvelous non-Francophone players when I was a kid, too. Tom Johnson, Doug Harvey, Dickie Moore, Ralph Backstrom , Donnie Marhshall and many others (hell, they could have been French, too, I’m not certain, to be honest, but they had/have English-sounding names). I’m guessing every one of them either spoke French, or darn soon learned to living and playing in Montreal.

Dick Irwin Sr. was a legendary coach. Frank Selke Sr. (having been weaned in the Leaf organization alongside Conn Smythe) were two of the master builders of the franchise. English names, but my understanding is they were fully bilingual.

Hector “Toe” Blake (a francophone, I believe, pictured at left) had a Hall-of-Fame playing career in Montreal, and went on to Coach 9 Stanley Cup teams as well. He must have won more Stanley Cup rings (combined as a player and coach) than any man alive.

This is all by way of saying that the Montreal Canadiens weren’t just a hockey team. They represented, at least in my mind, something more. And in that way, they were unique. Not exclusive, or narrow—simply different. Distinct, one might way.

I recall a telling (and prophetic) comment attributed to Claude Ruel in the early 1970s. To provide a bit of context, Ruel had been a fine junior player in the Montreal system in the 1960s, but lost an eye through a hockey injury. He became a scout for the Habs and took over as coach from Blake prior to the 1968-’69 season, I believe it was. He was the "rookie" coach (and he was very young for that era to be a head coach as well, maybe in his very early 30s...) that won the Cup with Montreal in ’69, but then presided over the Hab team that also actually missed the playoffs in 1970. That hadn’t happened in forever in Montreal in those days.

He resigned during the following season, replaced by an anglophone (Al MacNeil). MacNeil, on the back of minor-league call up Ken Dryden's superb goaltending and vets like Beliveau, Henri Richard, Yvan Cournoyer and ex-Leaf winger Fran Mahovlich, won the Cup in a major upset in that spring of 1971. (As an aside, MacNeil stepped down that off-season, replaced by Scotty Bowman, but not before Henri Richard had called him “the most incompetent coach I’ve ever played for…” at one point before the season was over...)

But back to Ruel. He said, in the early ‘70s when he was back to scouting for the team, that it didn’t matter where a player was from, if they were good, Montreal would draft them. Full stop.

This was shortly after the end of the local sponsorship era in the NHL, and Montreal having rights to virtually all the best French-Canadian kids in the province of Quebec. (The NHL eventually instituted the so-called amateur draft of 20 year-olds to balance the playing field for the new expansion teams.)

Ruel said something along the lines of…”If all the best players were Japanese, we would draft all Japanese players…”. I wish I could find the actual quote. In any event, he was basically saying, “look, language doesn’t matter, we pick the best players…” here in Montreal.

And that was true. In the early ‘70s, they selected Guy Lafleur, but they also picked Steve Shutt. They grabbed a Pierre Mondou, but they also selected Bob Gainey and Larry Robinson, who both became Hall-of-Famers.

They looked for the best. Period.

But the guy running the team, the coach, the individual who interacted day-to-day with the feverish Montreal hockey media was inevitably someone who could address the local media hordes in both official languages—French and English.

Dick Irwin could. Toe Blake could. Scotty Bowman did. Geoffrion, a francophone, coached briefly after Bowman. I can’t remember if Bob Berry, who coached the Canadiens during a portion of the early ‘80s, spoke French. Later Jean Perron and Pat Burns were fluently bilingual. You know the more recent list of coaches like Demers and Jacques Martin, who were at ease in both "official" languages.

To coach in Montreal, the expectation has always been: the fellow must be a top coach, and be able to handle the media demands every day.

In two languages.

Guy Carbonneau, another recent Montreal coach, said as much this week when he jumped into the Randy Cunneyworth debate by saying Randy will indeed need to learn french.

So, with all this is a backdrop, here is the question: is it “wrong” or somehow narrow-minded for some Quebecers (be they media people or every day fans) to be upset that Cunneyworth—a hard-working long-time NHL player who has worked diligently to earn a fine reputation as a coach as well—is unilingual?

I don’t know. I don’t have the answer.

Should they (media, fans, the organization) only be interested in the best coach available, or does/should language matter at all?

It’s funny, but in broader terms, I’ve felt for many years that the Habs have gotten away from their roots in recent times. I’d love to see them draft more French players, for example, and have more Quebec-born players on the team. Does that make me limited in my thinking?

I was raised hating the Canadiens (against my family's wishes, obviously), because they were so good. Not because they were French- heck, my background was/is french. But the cultural component of the team did add a little spice to the Montreal-Toronto rivalry, for me. And perhaps ironically, I was cheering passionately for the "english" team (the Leafs), though I was french and the rest of my family was rabidly pulling for the Habs every night of my young life.

So maybe I am being narrow in suggesting I'd like to see the team have a stronger french presence. Hell, I’m not even a Montreal fan, so maybe I shouldn't care at all. But part of their magic, their luster, their swagger, part of what made them unique, special, yes different, was indeed that they represented a certain cross-section of the Canadian population. Not to the exclusion of anyone else, but certainly including those French-Canadians who had sufficient skill to play for a great team- at least those the front-office could get their hands on.

Last time I checked, Montreal had two, maybe three guys on the roster who were French, from Quebec. So no, we’re a long ways past the Habs being the “Flying Frenchmen”, I realize.

Does it mean they have to remain what they were in the old days? Of course not. But is it all right to think that it would be nice if, while so many things change (and often for the better) in our world, the Montreal Canadiens were still, at least in part, “Les Habitants”?

For me it is. But again, I may be wrong, or looking at things through an outdated and narrow-minded lens. It doesn’t feel that way, though.

Does the coach have to speak french? No, I don't think so. But ideally, he would learn the language to be able to handle that one element of his job a bit better. And maybe as well, as a sign of respect for the history of the team he is now in charge of.

I will respect the views that differ from mine, of course. I look forward to hearing from you.

Like Sittler and Lanny, can Bozak and Frattin just keep getting better?

2011-12-20T21:00:00.002-05:00

Those who drop by here fairly regularly will know that I enjoy chatting about Leaf teams present—and past. A particular favorite is talking about either the 1970-’71 Leaf squad (really young defense, with Ley, Dorey, McKenny etc. and some outstanding veterans up front like Ullman, Ellis, Keon, Henderson). I also really liked the mid and later ‘70s teams built around Borje Salming and two outstanding power forwards: winger Lanny McDonald, along with captain and team leader, Darryl Sittler.

With that as a backdrop and historical reminder, I tend (probably too much) to look at players today, especially young Leafs, through the prism of what came before them.

Both Sittler and McDonald took a few years (not surprisingly, despite being high first-round draft choice in 1970 and 1973 respectively) to mature and become the players they ultimately grew to be. Both carved out (despite only one Cup between them over fairly lengthy careers) Hall-of-Fame-worthy achievements.

Both could play physically and were tough as nails, as the expression goes. They played together on the same line in their prime Toronto years, when both were young and at the top of their all-around game. I always remember McDonald absolutely blossoming in his third season. He had been a big scorer in junior hockey with Medicine Hat, but struggled in his first two plus seasons to score consistently. Yet I could see that, as his third full season progressed, he started bulling his way around defensemen, holding on to the puck and staying on his feet more while still playing a physical style. On successive Saturday nights at the Gardens, (I remember like it was yesterday) he knocked Bobby Orr and Denis Potvin ass-over-tea kettle with big-time hip checks as they were carrying the puck out of their own zones. From there, his confidence grew, the shots started to go in, instead of just a bit high or wide—and Lanny was on his way.

Sittler, too, just kept getting better and better, as he got stronger and grew into a real leadership role with the blue and white. (Their time in Toronto eventually ended sadly after Punch Imlach’s return, but I’ve touched on that before here and that’s a story for another day.)

Suffice to say that, even though both were top draft picks and expected to produce right away, it took some time. And that’s what I’m seeing now with two promising young Leafs, Tyler Bozak and Matt Frattin.

As “college guys”, Frattin and Bozak took a longer and different route to get to the NHL than Sittler and McDonald. Frattin was a Ferguson Jr. pick in the summer of ’07, but opted to play in college. Bozak also focused on college hockey while in school before signing as a free-agent with the Leafs-a Burke initiative.

Bozak gets a little stronger each season. We all (most of us, anyway) jumped on the Bozie bandwagon in his surprising rookie year. An undrafted college free-agent signing, he showed smarts, a nice passing touch and a deft ability in the face-off dot.

Of course, he was thrust into the top-line center position last year, too soon for him and a stretch in terms of team personnel-placement decisions. But he survived and likely learned a lot along the way.

Not surprisingly, expectations for Bozak were heavily deflated coming into camp this year, and now he is far from hurting the team wherever he is in the line-up, including anchoring Kessel and Bozak a lot of the time (at least to this point in the season).

He is hitting guys- hard. He still does OK on draws, and makes sweet passes. He is finishing enough to make himself that much more valuable offensively.

For his part, Frattin is showing the skill set that Ferguson's scouts liked a few years ago. Despite being a normal size for players nowadays, he has power-forward written all over him—a guy with surprising speed and a power burst that makes me think he will only get better as he learns to use his size, strength and quickness even more.

I’ve commented here before that I love his ability to drive around defensemen- including on his off-wing. That’s not a skill everyone possesses, but he seems to have it. I just think he has a nice combination of skills, and while he isn’t an 18-year old kid (he’ll be 24 in a couple of weeks), in two seasons from now he should be a bona fide NHL winger, maybe even a star.

Yes, it takes time. It almost always does. I know Bozak has likely be a part of Leaf trade talks, and may continue to be. But if I had to guess, two of the guys that will be core pieces up front for this organization going forward will be Tyler Bozak and Matt Frattin.