Mail bag

It sure seems as though the Battle of Ontario has extended into the post-season, with lots of sniping between followers of the Leafs and Senators even with Ottawa in the Stanley Cup final and the Leafs plotting for next year.

People, people – can’t we all just get along?

This week’s mail bag questions:

Q: When Harold Ballard first passed away and Cliff Fletcher was brought in it looked like the Leafs were finally on their way to rebuilding the franchise. What happened? I'm starting to feel like this is the Leafs from the 80's again.

Dave Russell, Holmes Beach, Fla.

A: Well, while the Leafs have missed the post-season in the past two years, I don’t think they’ve quite fallen to the depths of the 1980s quite yet. Right now, they’re just not good enough to compete in their division with Ottawa and Buffalo, which turned out to be the two best clubs in the Eastern Conference this season.

With regard to the Fletcher years, I think the impact was winning again, but rebuilding wasn’t really what they were looking to do. In fact, the emphasis was mostly on acquiring veteran players to win immediately, although the acquisition of Mats Sundin was obviously a long-term concept that has had a long-term effect on the team.

Are they on the right track now? There are positive and negative signs, and next season will be a watershed year for the current administration.

Q: I have followed the Leafs intensely for the last 15 years and all through their failures. Besides many of the reasons that you have mentioned throughout your columns such as trading away draft picks and rookies for old past their prime players, I think there is another reason for their failure as well. People keep saying that they are big spenders but never have they actually signed or traded for the "best player" available. Instead I think they choose to get the 3rd or 4th etc. best player available and way overpay for that player. (eg. Leetch instead of Gonchar, signing Kubina + Mccabe instead of going after Chara etc. etc. etc.) Do you think this is a major contributing factor or am I just imagining things?

PS: Based on the above reason I secretly believe that they will be signing Jason Blake this off-season to an overpriced deal and touting that he is a 40 goal scorer!

Keiyan Sy, Scarborough

A: It’s an interesting concept that you bring up, one I’ve heard before. Certainly, the Leafs have not had what I would consider a bonafide NHL superstar since Frank Mahovlich. I think if you look over the past, say, 16 years, from the time Cliff Fletcher arrived through the Ken Dryden and Pat Quinn years and now into the John Ferguson era, the Leafs have lacked the organizational stability to establish a consistent team identity and develop players for that identity. So even when they have spent, often the fits haven’t been quite right.

Could they have landed Chris Pronger last summer in a deal involving Tomas Kaberle and Alex Steen? Maybe, but then you’re changing directions again and sacrificing youth. Was Pavel Kubina a poor fit? I think that story has been exaggerated, and the fact is the Leafs, Wild and Blues were all interested in Kubina. When the Leafs got him at $5 million, the Wild went out and spent more than $4 million on Kim Johnsson and St. Louis signed Jay McKee for $4 million. None of those teams were interested in going big money for Chara, and the Bruins ended up missing the playoffs with him anyway. The reality is, either through drafting or trading or signing, the Leafs just haven’t been able to get the best players consistently.

Q: Hi Damien,

Is it just me, or should there not be 4 on 4 hockey in overtime during the playoffs? I think it would open up the ice & create more scoring opportunities as it does during the regular season. Heaven forbid that the intensity & entertainment value of 4 on 4 not be showcased when it matters most.

Anastasio Padula, North York

A: I’d be fine with four-on-four in the playoffs, but at the same time, generally speaking OT in the post-season works just fine for me. Most overtimes don’t go that long, and generally the drama and tension of the moment creates the same excitement, at least in my mind, as four-on-four in the regular season. That said, if the NHL decided to change, I’d have no problem with that.

Q: I hope the Vancouver Canucks have learned that they were a little silly getting rid of Brian Burke some time ago. Maybe the Canucks could in be the finals with the Senators in the year 2007.

Peter Johnson, Calgary

A: Maybe. But you could then say the same thing about John Muckler and Bryan Murray in terms of the teams that fired them. The hockey world is littered with people who were fired in one place and succeeded in another – Peter Laviolette won a Stanley Cup last season, Don Maloney just got the GM job in Phoenix – and circumstances vary wildly in different cities. Burke seems to have clicked with the new ownership in Anaheim, but he’d also be the first person to tell you he has benefited from the building that Murray did as Anaheim GM before he got here. Is Burke a quality GM? The evidence says he is, and he may soon be a Stanley Cup champion. But Dave Nonis has also done a tremendous job rebuilding that Vancouver situation.

Q: As member of Leafs Nation I find very difficult to get behind Ottawa. For the record, I will be cheering for the Ducks. Are you surprised by the lack of support not only from Leafs Nation but people from Toronto and southern Ontario? Can you really blame us for not cheering for the Sens?

San Vongnaraj, Toronto

A: No, can’t say I’m surprised. My own children are cheering madly for the Ducks because they can’t stand the Senators. I think the issue of a Canadian team winning the Stanley Cup was far more important during the late 1990s going up to the lockout year because there was real concern that Canadian teams were no longer able to compete with American-based clubs because of the wide disparity in the amounts of money teams could spend on player salaries. That’s much less of an issue now, and having three Canadian teams making the Cup finals in the last three seasons proves that clubs north of the border can compete. A 90-plus cent dollar hasn’t hurt either.

Q: Damien,

You surprise me by your sorehead comments on Alfredsson alleged penalty and the suggestion that Hamilton should have gotten an NHL franchise vice Ottawa. As a good sports writer why don't you accentuate the positive by outright naming Ottawa SENs as a far superior team in all aspects to the lacklustre and poorly managed Toronto LAFFs rather than digging to the bottom of the barrel for disparaging remarks about the Senators. The "proof of the pudding is in the eating" and you and your sentimentalist Hogtown fans must be starving in an attempt to justify your pathetic team. Typical Toronto arrogance. Let's face it your team SUCKS big time. Tend to your own team problems but in the meantime, show some sportsmanship by getting on the Canadian bandwagon by cheering Canada's Team, the Ottawa Senators, to the 2007 Stanley Cup. Otherwise "eat your heart out", losers!

Bruce King, Ottawa

A: Bruce, I’m not sure how Alfredsson’s patently illegal hit on Henrik Tallinder or the history of how Ottawa got its team have anything at all to do with the current quality of the Maple Leafs. If you want to discuss the Leafs, we should talk about that.

I don’t ever pretend to speak for Leaf fans. But to suggest that "as a good sports writer" that I should accentuate the positive and talk about what a great team the Senators are, I think your lack of understanding about my job are showing through. My job isn’t to cheer for any team, whether it’s the Leafs, Sens or Ducks. That’s your job as a fan, and rather than bitterly ripping into the mediocrity of the Leafs or demanding that fans in Toronto back Ottawa, my suggestion would be that you should enjoy the run of the Senators because it doesn’t happen all that often.

Finally, and I realize you may not be interested in the facts, but I think if you examine an archive of the columns I’ve written about the Senators during the playoffs, you’ll find lots of complimentary ones about the quality of this team.

I do find it funny that people like you want to create the perception that anything I write is coloured because I’m supposedly cheering for the Leafs, and then I get emails from Leaf fans accusing me of hating their team and inviting me to move elsewhere. I guess the moral of that story is that you can’t please everybody, particularly people who are blinded by their support of a sports team.

Q: Is it just me, or is Daniel Alfredsson a dirty player?

Sure, he’s come through for the Sens this post season with 4 game winning goals, making up for a lacklustre regular season, but he has no class.

We have the hit from behind on Tallinder this post season, and if I recall correctly, a bad hit on Darcy Tucker in the second round of the playoffs several years ago, that led to a seperated shoulder.

Maybe I have a selective memory, but when was the last time Mats Sundin was criticized for a dirty, cowardly play (I guess this would be my question)? I just think back to Havlat and his kung fu skate kicks, and realize Ottawa has skill, but no class. I think it makes perfect sense the rest of Canada has been so reluctant to get behind the only Canadian team left.

Andrew Barrie, Toronto

A: I don’t believe Alfredsson is a dirty player at all, and I also believe he is one of the classiest people in the NHL, always courteous and polite and generous with his time whenever I’ve dealt with him.

In terms of your second reference, I always find it kind of funny Leaf fans and broadcasters repeatedly bring up Martin Havlat getting in trouble for kicking another player, yet seem to have mysteriously forgotten Shayne Corson kicking Eric Cairns during a Leaf-Islander playoff series. Selective memory, perhaps?

And, as I mentioned in one of my other answers, I think this "Canada’s team" thing has become a bit silly. People cheer for whatever NHL team they want and shouldn’t feel compelled to "get behind" any other team out of some twisted sense of patriotism.

Q: Hi Damien,

With Daniel Alfredsson surpassing anything Mats Sundin has ever done of real importance in the NHL (coming closer to the Cup and the Playoff MVP than Sundin has or ever will), will Sundin finally be seen as the perennial loser he really is?

Be honest and quit making excuses for Sundin - as a leader he's more Markus Naslund than Gretzky or Messier or even Alfredsson.

Will Ottawa's promotion to the finals put any more pressure on the Leafs to put together a good team? Or, as most Leaf fans outside Toronto think, MLSE doesn't care what goes on outside their market as long as the fans (suckers) keep buying tickets?

Ed Stevens, Cobalt, Ont.

A: Okay, I guess here we go again. Why does everything about the Sens have to be a reflection on or about the Leafs, and vice versa? For starters, Alfredsson hasn’t won anything yet, and comparing him to Messier is just downright absurd at this point. Talk to me when he’s got two or three Cups. As far as Sundin goes, I think he has been a very consistent and durable point-per-game performer for the Leafs for over a decade. I think on better teams and within a better organization he’d have won a championship by now, but many players could say that. As far as being a great leader, its not only about winning a Cup. Will Dave Andreychuk go down as one of the great leaders in NHL history because he wore the “C” when the Lightning won it all in 2004? I don’t think so.

As far as whether the Sens run to the final will put more pressure on the Leafs to win, I think if you’re talking about MLSE, the answer is no. Enormous profits shelter them from the urgency to win. If you’re talking about the Leaf hockey department, Ferguson and Paul Maurice know they have a big job to compete in a tough division. I think they’re motivated.

---

Click here to send Damien a question and he'll answer a selection in his mail bag every Thursday in this space.

Just, Well, Weird

Another day in La-La Land, another day of hand-wringing about the pervasive influence of the Canadian media. Bizarre. Utterly bizarre.

Today it was columnist Helene Elliott in the L.A. Times chiding members of the Canadian media for slamming hockey interest in SoCal and supposedly favoring the Ottawa Senators in the Stanley Cup final against Anaheim.

"The Canadian media have cast the Senators in the role of Canada's Team, even though the Ducks have more sons of the True North on their roster than do the Senators. And the label may not even be accurate.

"Maple Leafs fans rarely care about anything that happens outside of Toronto, otherwise known as the Center of the Hockey Universe, so their support of the Senators is probably minimal, if it exists at all."

This stuff is so utterly idiotic it's hard to even comment on it, particularly in a U.S. state with a larger population than all of Canada. More to the point, readers of the newspaper must be utterly confused by this silliness, which seems to roughly equate newspapers and television in Canada with state-controlled media from the old Soviet Union, thinking en masse and according to some approved national policy.

But on to more interesting stuff.

The Ducks won Game 1 last night, and deserved it. That said, the Sens weren't completely awful, just their top forwards were. Peter Schaefer, Mike Comrie and Antoine Vermette were pretty effective, while Anton Volchenkov blocked 10 shots and Chris Phillips was strong. But the nature of the Cup final is that the winner did everything right and the loser did everything wrong; such are the broad brushstrokes that color the post-match canvas.

The Ducks received a very good game from their checking line of Sammy Pahlsson between Rob Niedermayer and Travis Moen, and for that, Anaheim fans should send cards and letters of appreciation to the Calgary Flames.

It was the Flames, after all, who tired of Niedermayer partway through the 2002-03 season and sent him to the Ducks for defenceman Mike Commodore and goalie J.F. Damphousse. The Flames later traded Commodore away for little in return and Damphousse never made it, so not a great deal for Calgary.

While streaky and inconsistent throughout his career, Niedermayer has been very good for the Ducks. Moreover, if he hadn't been in Anaheim, it's unlikely his superb brother, Scott, would have signed with the Ducks last summer as a free agent.

It was Calgary that also initially drafted Moen out of the Kelowna Rocket juniors in 2000 with the 155th pick. But the Flames were on a bit of an economy kick and chose not to sign Moen, who later joined Chicago as a free agent and was eventually dealt to Anaheim.

All he did in Game 1 was score the winning goal - with assists from Niedermayer, R., and Niedermayer, S.

Interestingly, the Flames have no 2000 draft picks currently on their roster, but along with Moen, Jarrett Stoll (46th overall) and defenceman Kurtis Foster (40th overall) were players selected by Calgary that the Flames chose not to sign to contracts. Stoll went back into the draft, Foster's rights were traded to Atlanta and today all three players - Moen, Stoll and Foster - are playing in the NHL.

It's Just Different

ANAHEIM-It was pointed out during a media welcome party last night held by the NHL that, at least from a media point of view, the Stanley Cup final is starting to look a lot like the Grey Cup.

Mostly Canadian media, and many of the same faces.

This is a final dominated by Canadian coverage. In fact, twice over the last two weeks the Anaheim Ducks have cited the presence and influence of the Canadian media as factors in different stories.

First, Chris Pronger said newspaper and electronic types from the Great White North got him suspended. Then, GM Brian Burke suggested the Canadian media has artificially made Ottawa the favorite to win the Cup.

Doesn't this seem a little weird to anybody? I mean, this is distant California, not Alberta or even a border state. It's sort of the reverse juice to that which we've all grown up with in Canada, namely the overwhelming presence of U.S. media and culture. In this Stanley Cup final, however, NBC won't even be showing up until Game 3.

But I suppose its a reflection both of Canada's deep interest in the sport and the lack of same in the United States. That has more than a few Canadian reporters taking great delight in asking locals about hockey and then reporting their lack of interest of knowledge, which is fair.

But the truth is here in the greater Los Angeles area, not much makes an overwhelming impact. Interest in everything is diffused because of the geography, the density of population and the mixed cultures. As colleage Michael Farber of Sports Illustrated pointed out, even the Summer Olympics failed to make the kind of impact on this community as some believe the Stanley Cup final should make in every city.

So there is no Red Mile here, but there wouldn't be for anything, including the Super Bowl or World Series. It's just too big and too spread out. I tried to figure out on the way down here why I had no memory of the '03 final between the Ducks and Devils, and other than the obvious age and lifestyle reasons, it's also that the media hotel and arena are located in the middle of suburbia. It's like it would be if the Stanley Cup final was held in Woodbridge, although there would be a lot more obvious interest in Woodbridge.

The most positive impact of the Canadian media influence on the Stanley Cup final, meanwhile, lies in the name itself.

For the better part of a decade, the Bettman adminstration tried to force the concluding playoff series to be called the "finals," which never made much sense since there was only one series.

But the NBA had adopted that name, and so the big thinkers in the NHL head office figure that had to be right.

As far as the Stanley Cup, however, it had always been the final, and now, magically, the league has reverted to the correct name.

Maybe we can help these people after all.

Friday Incompletions

The NHL does not need new a new franchise in Canada. Based on many different indicators, it needs three. Or four. How this $2.3 billion a year industry has managed to become badmouthed across the continent has much to do with the fact there is so little enthusiasm in so many markets for anything but the local team. That is very, very different from all six Canadian cities. . .Maybe Anaheim will pull this off, and California will have an NHL champion for the first time since first putting down roots in that state 40 years ago. . .When I suggested that the San Jose Sharks might be a candidate for a Lou Lamoriello-like, late season firing of coach Ron Wilson, people scoffed. But if GM Doug Wilson were allowed a do-over, there's a pretty good chance he'd dump Wilson, the coach. . .Jesse Palmer must be one lousy quarterback. He's been rinsed out of the CFL without even having thrown a pass. Shouldn't somebody - how about that new commissioner, what's-his-name? - have lifted a finger and told the Alouettes that if they weren't going to give Palmer a chance, then let some other team if only to see if Palmer might add a little prime-time appeal to the league?. . .Okay, Jeremy Accardo. I'm impressed. . .Got all excited because NBC was airing a few final, leftover episodes of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, starting Thursday night. I shouldn't have been, particularly since the show's two stars, Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford, seem to have been mysteriously airbrushed out of the show. . .If you're wondering why so many Cinncinnati Bengals are running afoul of the law, eventually you have to at least look at the coaching adminstration of Marvin Lewis, don't you? This week, in an interview on ESPN radio, Lewis suggested police profilling is at the root of the problem, not the decisions of his players. He later retracted the remarks. . .There is no outrage in Nashville today over the state of the Predators, only the quiet assertion that the city, if it wants, can force the Preds to stay by buying lots of tickets. Hardly the beginnings of a "Save the Jets" campaign. . .I know that I'm supposed to embrace the Memorial Cup - never, ever add the credit card sponsor's name as a prefix - like the flag, but doesn't having two of the final four competitors based in the U.S. kind of kill the patriotic angle? Seeing Plymouth beat Lewiston in the tiebreaker is like watching Baltimore win the Grey Cup. . .Cohon, yes, I'm pretty sure that's the new CFL commish's name. But I could be wrong. Weird how there wasn't even a puff of smoke from the commissioner's office when  Bill Palmer pulled the plug on the latest bid to put a team back in Ottawa. .They won't get nearly enough credit for it, but the Toronto Argonauts ownership team of Howard Sokolowski and David Cynamon and B.C. Lions owner David Braley recently made enormous contributions to Canadian hospitals. Congratulations, gentlemen. . .Leaf fans better hope Nikolai Kulemin isn't a 2007 version of Alexei Kudashov. . .Brian Leetch was worth the price of admission on many nights during his NHL career. That he was a graceful, classy man just makes it sad it's all over, but we were lucky to have him in Toronto for even a brief time. . .Believe it or not, Kudashov and Leetch once shared the same rink. Both were part of their team's rosters - Kudashov with the Leafs, Leetch with the Rangers - when those two teams met in September, 1993 at Wembley Arena for a two-game joust to claim the French's Mustard Cup. Don't remember much more about it other than Bill Berg and Adam Graves had once heck of a boxing match at centre ice and the press box was located in the first row behind the Leaf bench.

Mail Bag

Here we are, late May, and we only have to wait another four more off-days until the NHL gets going with the Stanley Cup final. These two clubs will be so rested they’ll be almost asleep.

Lucky hockey fans!

Here’s this week’s mail bag: (click here to submit a question)

Q: Boy, we would have loved to have seen the OT between the Sens and Sabres but were shuffled off to the racetrack instead by NBC. Surely that wasn't the case in Canada...or was it too?

Martin Shaw, Las Vegas

A: No, but we have the great good fortune to be able to count on CBC and Hockey Night in Canada. The Great Apocalyse, it would seem, would be only event that would ever pull the national broadcaster away from overtime of a Stanley Cup playoff game. The fact that NBC gave its affiliates the choice, of course, just illustrates the opposite; how limited the commitment of NBC is to hockey, and how hockey is held in such low-esteem by a broadcaster that would never do the same to the NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball. Or NASCAR, for that matter.

Q: Hi Damien,

The Leafs appear to have more depth at defence than forward, and are desperate for some pure skill up front. Are there any "Pavel Kuvina" contracts out there at forward, particularly on a team that could use a top 3 defenceman? Do you think it would be possible to trade Pavel + bad contract for (insert name of skilled forward here) + bad contract?

Steve Miner, Toronto

A: As I’ve said before, there are no untradeable contracts, just unimaginative GMs. Anything is possible. Look at Tampa Bay. They’ve got the Brad Richards five-year, $39 million contract with another four years to run, as well as a roster that desperately requires depth at all positions.

So let’s spitball, here. If you were the Leafs and offered Bryan McCabe and Andrew Raycroft, or Kubina and Wellwood, would the Bolts be motivated to make a deal? Maybe. The point is that its not only about whether Richards is worth more as a player than Kubina and Wellwood combined, or McCabe and Raycroft combined. It’s that combined with their impact on the salary cap.

So do I think it would be possible for the Leafs to move their bad contracts, specifically those of McCabe and Kubina? Absolutely.

Q: Now with Ian White signed to a long term deal, and Anton Stralman's performance at the World Championships, it seems safe to assume the starting 6 Leafs blueliners next season will be McCabe, Kaberle, Kubina, Gill, White, and Stralman. So what do the Leafs do with Colaiacovo, Wozniewski, and Kronwall, keep them as spare defenders in case of injuries, either with the Leafs or down with the Marlies, or trade them?

Sylvie Boudrais, Toronto

A: The Detroit Red Wings just lost the Western Conference final to Anaheim largely because two of Detroit’s best defencemen, Mathieu Schneider and Niklas Kronwall, were out with injuries. Still, the Wings got as far as they could with the likes of Brett Lebda and Kyle Quincey. The moral of the story is that you need eight NHL defencemen, not just six.

Out of that group of nine blueliners you listed above, I count four proven NHL vets and two rookies with upside: White and Colaiacovo. The other three – Stralman, Wozniewski and Kronwall – are unproven, and Kronwall may be headed back to Europe if he can’t get a one-way contract from the Leafs.

So I don’t see the Leafs as having spare defenceman at all. I see them as having a shortage of proven NHL rearguards, even though defence remains the club’s deepest area.

Q: Hi Damien,

In light of the Pronger suspension, what do you make of the NHL's inaction regarding Daniel Alfredsson's cheapshot hit from behind on a Buffalo defenseman (Ales Kotalik?) in game three of that series for which he wasn't even penalized? While Alfredsson didn't hit his victim in the head, he certainly drove him head-first into the boards with wanton disregard for his safety. In my view, this is the NHL's #1 enforcement problem: the wild inconsistency with how it treats hits from behind.

Geoff Read, Toronto

A: I agree. Alfredsson left his feet to hit the Buffalo player – it was Henrik Tallinder – and clearly hit him from behind. It deserved at least a major and a review. The fact the NHL doesn’t take stronger action on these types of hits proves – again – it doesn’t mind them being a regular part of the game.

Q: Hey Damien,

With the new officiating, it would make sense to me for the NHL to start using a 1-minute penalty for infractions that don't directly interfere with a scoring chance. For example, offensive or neutral zone hooking, holding, tripping, and of course, for the dreaded shooting the puck over the glass. If an infraction interferes with a scoring chance, it would still be two-minutes. So what do you think? And what are the chances the NHL competition committee will makes a change to the arcane 2-minute penalty?

Scoop Furlong, Ottawa

A: I think it’s a good idea. And I think there’s no chance the NHL will look at it. It’s been suggested before, but for whatever reason the league appears wedded to the notion that penalties are either two minutes, four minutes, five minutes or 10. The notion of a one-minute penalty is interesting, except that with the success rate with which teams are able to kill penalties, I wonder if teams wouldn’t just take those minors after a while, knowing there was a limited cost attached.

Q: I totally agree with you about the 2 minute penalty for a little tap on the butt by a stick when you see the real transgressions that take place in any hockey game but do you honestly think that 5 and a game would be a deterrent for high sticking?

Didn't the N.H.L. already try something similar in the early 90's? You could actually see players trying to pop a zit in an effort to draw blood out of there faces to force the 5 and a game penalty for drawing blood. Do we also have to painfully endure the referees conveniently not seeing a star player's infraction as was once quite painfully and famously done many years ago. Personally I think it would lead to more players flinging there heads back as if they just got nailed by a 21 year old Mike Tyson right hook.

Micheal Taylor, Whitby

A: For starters, I wouldn’t worry about looking for blood. A high stick is a high stick, and five and game for every high stick would indeed act as a deterrent. Look at how much hooking and holding have been reduced, and those are just two minute minors!

As far as whether it would encourage dramatic over-reactions, there’s a straightforward response. First, you could make such calls immediately reviewable by head office in Toronto, and any deliberate and obvious fakery could have the call reversed and the miscreant booted out of the game and suspended. No Rivaldo crap here. The player initially identified as the high-sticker would stay in the game and his team would go on the power play. If you can review as high-stick resulting in a goal or a puck deliberately directed into the net with skate, you can review this stuff just as quickly and clean up the garbage.

---

Click here to send Damien a question and he'll answer a selection in his mail bag every Thursday in this space.

The Curiosities of Hockey History

You're going to read a lot about the history of the Ottawa Senators this week as the team prepares for the return of the Stanley Cup final to the nation's capital for the first time in 80 years.

Since the modern Senators are only 15 years old, however, it's not quite waxing nostaligic.

It's more about looking back and marvelling at how the Sens landed their franchise in the first place.

SHAUN BEST/REUTERS

After becoming an NHL expansion team in 1990, the Ottawa Senators reached the Stanley Cup final in 2007.

And probably how they didn't deserve to. I'll never forget being there on Dec. 6, 1990 at the plush Breaker's Hotel in West Palm Beach as then NHL president John Ziegler sat at a press conference with Bruce Firestone of Ottawa on one side and Phil Esposito of the successful Tampa bidder on the other, announcing the NHL's two newest teams.

Esposito was all wisecracks and smiles, having somehow convinced the NHL board of governors to give him a team. The phlegmatic Firestone looked mostly surprised. Stunned, really, as he should have been. He knew he'd just pulled a fast one.

No one has ever proven anything, of course, but it's reasonable to assume that the undying greed of the Maple Leafs - then owned by Harold Ballard - was largely responsible for helping Ottawa get a team, an intriguing happenstance given that the Sens have now managed to supercede the Leafs as the province's top NHL team, at least in terms of on-ice achievements.

Back in August, 1990, Ottawa was one of 11 initial bidders for two NHL franchises during the final days of John Ziegler's rather unimpressive run as NHL boss. The other bidders were Hamilton, Milwaukee, St. Petersburg, Tampa Bay, Houston, Miami, Orlando, Phoenix, San Diego and Seattle. Milwaukee - failed suitors for Pittsburgh this year - and Phoenix - which eventually landed the Winnipeg Jets - soon dropped out.

The St. Petersburg bid was backed by Peter Karmanos, who eventually got his mitts on the Hartford Whalers and moved them to Raleigh, with Jim Rutherford set to operate the hockey team. The Miami bid was fronted by John Henry, current owner of the Boston Red Sox.

Hamilton, however, became recognized as the front runner because it was the only city that came even close to meeting all the NHL's "requirements" for a team, including an arena, a lease, 10,000 season tickets and a wealthy owner. Tim Hortons king Ron Joyce was the money man.

Ottawa brought a marching band to the final meeting in West Palm Beach, but didn't have the money or an arena. Firestone headed Terrace Investments, and the bid for an NHL team was largely a cover for a multi-million dollar real estate play in Kanata.

The biggest problem for Hamilton was that it would have to pay indemnification fees to Toronto and Buffalo, but the NHL refused to allow negotiations on a figure before the franchises were awarded.

That left Joyce in a tough spot. Without being able to budget his total costs, he suggested to the NHL board that he would pay his $50 million franchise fee in pieces - $5 million that day, $25 million the next year and the rest over the following seven years.

That gave the NHL governors their out. They instead took the two bids that agreed to pay the $50 million up front, Ottawa and Tampa Bay, even though neither had the money nor would ultimately be able to adhere to the payment schedule. The NHL wanted to be in the Sunshine State, so clearly Ottawa got the nod ahead of Hamilton.

The Leafs, on the other hand, didn't want Hamilton, just as more than a decade later they didn't want Eugene Melnyk, the current owner of the Sens, to buy Maple Leaf Gardens as a home for his St. Mike's Majors. The Leafs didn't have to formally "block" Hamilton - every other NHL team knew going in what the deal was.

On the basis of quality and meeting the league's criteria, the two winning bids should have been St. Petersburg, with Karmanos, and Hamilton. But they were denied. Screwed, really. Karmanos eventually got the Whalers, while Joyce for a time owned a piece of the Calgary Flames before getting out of the hockey business again.

Would Hamilton have been more successful than Ottawa or Tampa Bay? Certainly, Hamilton would have caused far fewer headaches for the league in the initial seven or eight years after expansion. That said, rising salaries in the late 1990s might well have driven Hamilton out of business, and it's not clear whether the city would have been able to replace Copps Coliseum over time with the top quality rinks both Ottawa and Tampa enjoy today. Maybe yes, maybe no.

That said, desperation, both financially and competitively, forced both the Senators and Lightning to eventually work out their problems and succeed. In both cases, quality ownership eventually arrived, and economic uncertainty meant both had to work a little harder at putting a good team on the ice. Sinking so low in the standings, it's also worth pointing out, allowed both teams to add good young players over time.

The fact that the Leafs have always been terrified of competition, on the other hand, is why they've been able to live such a cushy existence and have never faced the urgency to win in order to stay alive.

That's a big part of the reason why the Leafs haven't hosted a Stanley Cup final game in 40 years, while the Lightning already have a Cup and the Sens will be the home team for Game 3 of the 2007 Stanley Cup final in 10 days.

Some Playoff Humour

Well, thanks to Chris Pronger for adding a little levity to the post-season. At this point, with another three weeks left in the post-season, we probably needed it.

Being a California dude now, Pronger must have unlimited access to all kinds of material for various L.A. comedy shops, and he used all of it in an L.A. radio interview when he was discussing his one-game suspension for his cheapshot hit on Detroit's Tomas Holmstrom.

His monologue included:

--suggesting a Canadian media conspiracy forced the NHL to suspend him.

Now, some might wonder why the Canadian media would be so inclined to make sure a multiple-time Canadian Olympian would be suspended, but no matter. Pronger couldn't have been serious, so it was a good giggle.

--his hit on Holmstrom was something that happens "a thousand times" during the season. (And, when it does, usually results in much more than a one-game suspension). Inconsistent officiating - an "absolute joke" according to the Ducks blueliner - is at the root of it all.

Sounds a little like he's double-dog-daring league sheriff Colin Campbell to fine or suspend him again, don't you think? But surely nobody would misconstrue Pronger's silliness as a serious commment, right?

--Basic "laws of physics" dictated that the only way he could possibly make contact with Holmstrom on that play was to charge at him from behind and drive his elbow into the back of the Red Wing forwards helmet. Why? Well, because Pronger is 6-foot-6, and can never be expected to follow the same rules as other players because of his height (insert loud guffaw from laugh track here). How he ever lands a legal check, by that argument, is a mystery.

It was an interesting time for Pronger to do his comedy act, given that you'd think he'd be too busy apologizing to his teammates for selfishly putting them in a bad spot in Game 4, and then of course showering them with thanks for bailing his sorry butt out.

But laughs are good too. When you work for Brian Burke, of course, you never, ever say you're sorry. And there's always a conspiracy out there trying to get you.

(Ed. Note: Some respondents to "The Wild West" last weekend expressed outrage that I suggested HNIC would condone Pronger's actions re Holmstrom, particularly the fact the hit was from behind. Well, just to follow up, that's exactly what happened on Coach's Corner on the weekend.)

Pronger grounded, and Thursday mailbag

So did the NHL get it right?

Suspending Chris Pronger for one game - Game 5 tonight against Anaheim - is certainly a significant loss for the Ducks. Anaheim GM Brian Burke protested strenuously, as he should, but ultimately it was hard for anybody to dismiss the image of a dazed, bleeding Tomas Holmstrom lying on the ice.

Maybe the NHL weighed its own errors into the decision. The refereeing crew did, after all, finger the wrong Anaheim player, kicking Rob Niedermayer out of the game.

Burke could have argued, then, that the Ducks were essentially being punished twice for the same transgression. Well, he could have tried, anyway, but then again, maybe Colin Campbell's first impulse was a two-game suspension and he made it one because of the refereeing error.

So the Ducks are unhappy and Pronger is missing a big game.

Still, in a larger sense, if you believe suspensions should be designed as a deterrent against future behavior, its hard to believe much was accomplished.

Remember Alexander Radulov of Nashville receiving a one game ban in the first round for running Steve Bernier of the Sharks head first into the glass? Did that change a thing? Of course not.

The NHL will continue to have these dangerous hits in its game until it takes a much, much stronger stand against them such as minimum suspensions, regardless of time or place.

Something like any hit from behind is an automatic game misconduct and five-game suspension. You'd be amazed how such plays would go the way of the dinosaur.

It's the same with highsticking. As long as a pitchfork to the face is penalized the same as a hook in the neutral zone, players are going to govern themselves accordingly. Watch the way in which Buffalo's Toni Lydman was wielding his lumber at head height in the third period of Game 4 against Ottawa on Wednesday night. The stick caught Sens forward Chris Neil dangerously in the face, and Lydman received all of a two minute minor for the incident.

Make that five and a game everytime and it disappears from the sport.

So sure, making Pronger sit for a game was at least a reaction of some kind from a league that often lets such things go.

But it won't change anything.

MAIL BAG

Click here to send Damien a question and he'll answer a selection in his mail bag every Thursday in this space.

Q: Mr. Cox,

After the good news concerning the recovery of Karel Pilar, it was reported that he would be on the roster for the Czech team at the Worlds. Yet, I see no mention of him in the stats. Any word on that situation?

W. Koopman, Olympia, WA

A: He never made it onto the Czech's official roster and didn’t play at the worlds. His future is unclear, but the Leafs are interested in taking another look at him next season, perhaps under a two-way deal so that if he can't play any higher than the Marlies, it won't be costly. That might be hard for Pilar to swallow, however, and he might look for a better, more lucrative deal in Europe.

Q: Hi Damien.

In order, how would you rank the top 5 goalies whom you would consider to be the greatest ever to wear a Leaf's sweater?

Michael Armour, Dubai

A: Wow. Well, this is very, very tough because so many of the most prominent goalies in Leaf history only played a part of their careers, and sometimes a very small part, in Toronto.

Given that, I would start with Terry Sawchuk and move to Johnny Bower. Next would be Ed Belfour, but that would include his body of work before he played for the Leafs, which should get him into the Hall of Fame.

Ditto for Grant Fuhr. Then we’d probably go to Turk Broda, although that was well before my time.

So that’s five – Sawchuk, Bower, Belfour, Fuhr and Broda - but it doesn’t include Bernie Parent, Jacques Plante, George Hainsworth, Lorne Chabot or Harry Lumley, all of whom played between one and five seasons with the Leafs.

Q: Hey DC,

There has been much in the way of "building around youth" talk whenever someone defends JFJ's personnel decisions. I find that quite ironic given these same people overlook the situation he has put the team in with respect to the development of blueline assets. With McCabe, Kubina, and Gill unmovable due to overmarket valued contracts, Kaberle unmovable because he is too valuable and with Colaiacovo and White seemingly pegged to fill out the top six, one has to wonder how it is going to be possible for the Leafs to provide their developing defencemen with any NHL experience in the next two seasons (barring injury of course). Bearing this and the fact that the Marlies performed so poorly last year, do you see JFJ moving some blueline assets he cannot provide NHL icetime to in order to build depth in the forward ranks? Thanks for your time.

Nigel Bose, Toronto

A: Two points. One, assuming those contracts are all unmovable is not correct. Every team has players eating up too much of their cap space or that they would like to move, and every team has players with no-trade clauses that would wave those rights under certain circumstances, as we saw at the trade deadline.

Second, the whole point of having veterans is to give younger players time to learn the trade in the minors. White and Colaiacovo are the only two blueliners who have proven they can play at the NHL, so there’s no need to make room quite yet. If the newly signed Anton Stralman or Staffan Kronwall makes a huge statement in training camp, you worry about making room then. But you still need between six and eight NHL calibre defencemen, at least, and you can’t say the Leafs even have that yet. Moreover, they moved Brendan Bell to get Yanic Perreault, so they don’t really have more bodies to spare to strengthen themselves up front, although I’m sure they’d consider any deal.

Q: What is the logic to giving John Ferguson an extension? Won’t it be wise to let the current contract expire and then if they make the playoffs resign him and if not just hire someone else - I doubt the players will play any different knowing he is a so called 'lame duck' GM. I fear it will be like when the Raptors gave Lenny Wilkens that big extention and fired him the next year and had to pay for 2 more years.

Andrew Stevens, Toronto

A: You’re not wrong. But if you let Ferguson go into next season with just one year, it will be an issue all season long. In a major media market like Toronto, that can be a significant problem. Moreover, it seems unreasonable to ask a GM to patiently build with you, but then tell him you don’t have the confidence in him to give him a longer term deal.

Q: Damien,

Here is something I simply do not understand. Why can we not have a second NHL team in the GTA? Is it about protected regions or markets? If so, how is it that New York State has three teams? Exactly where do those said markets start and end? Clearly Toronto proper let alone Etobicoke, Scarborough, Hamilton, Kitchener etc could support NHL teams. Why has no one tried to get a second team in this obviously ample market?

Moe Green, Austin, TX

A: Simple. Leafs have territorial rights within 50 miles. Compensating them for those rights at the price they would demand would make a new franchise unprofitable. The Devils compensated the Rangers when they moved to New Jersey from Colorado, and the Islanders probably did as well as an expansion team, although that’s a little foggier. At any rate, the Leafs would probably want $100 million to start. They don’t want any competitition in the market, period. They didn’t even want Eugene Melnyk to operate a junior team out of Maple Leaf Gardens and refused to sell it to him.

Q: Damien, I have a real problem with icing in the NHL.

Icing usually occurs when a team finds themselves in trouble, and that trouble is usually the result of great play by the attacking team. To ice the puck while under attack breaks up the attack and the attacking teram is sort of punished by the break in play.

Some poor defenseman still has to skate the length of the ice to touch the puck. Valuable seconds are lost due to icing, especially when a team is trying to tie a game in the dying seconds. Additionally, while the player is skating back to get the puck, the defenders are already beginning to rest. Then they rest waiting for the faceoff. It seems to me that the team who has to chase the puck loses in the whole deal. Momentum is lost.

Let's make icing the puck a penalty. 2 minutes for icing. Make teams play their way out of trouble. That would be better for the game. I know that the league has brought in a new icing regulation, defenders can’t change their line-up, but they're usually well rested by the time the puck is dropped again.

Rick Flanagan, Memphis

A: I hear what you’re saying, but I like the new rule and wouldn’t support calling for a minor penalty – which would just allow the team to ice the puck with impunity. Forcing them to play on with tired players is a good compromise.

Q: Hi Damien,

Since you appear on "The Reporters," you must know Steve Simmons from the Toronto Sun quite well. Since he was clearly wrong regarding his Mats Sundin story, and even said on "Off The Record" that he would issue an apology if he was wrong, perhaps you can shed some light as to why no apology has been given. Is it that he plans to make one publicly on TV or what? I do not think it is fair that he essentially lied to everyone, wrote a false story, and is not punished or anything. This shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity and illustrates that he has no credibility as a writer. Where is our apology?

Max Zakrzewski, Toronto

A: You’ll have to ask Mr. Simmons. I’d rather not comment too directly because I think its unprofessional. I would only say I would hope The Star would at least insist on getting comment from the people directly involved before publishing such a controversial piece. Other than that, it’s the Sun’s business what they put in their paper, and the readers will judge.

Click here to send Damien a question and he'll answer a selection in his mail bag every Thursday in this space.

The Wild West

The NHL lets head shots go unpenalized all the time.

As proven with Daniel Alfredsson's hit on Buffalo's Henrik Tallinder in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference final, the league also routinely condones punishing hits from behind.

So to think Gary Bettman's administration will suddenly get the urge to do the right thing and suspend Anaheim's Chris Pronger for his cheapshot on Tomas Holmstrom of the Detroit Red Wings in Game 3 of the Western Conference final last night would be expecting Bettman's league to suddenly come to its senses.

Pronger's hit was to the head, it was from behind, it drew blood and it had fans in Anaheim baying for more blood given that the Ducks had got Holmstrom, probably the most troublesome Detroit player in the series so far.

(Ed note: The NHL will hold a hearing on the incident late Tuesday.)

Understand this. The NHL adores mayhem. It likes blood. It wants to see players like Holmstrom have their heads split open and bleeding, and to have those "highlights" shown on television throughout Canada and the U.S. It wants hockey to be seen as a sport in which Wes Craven would feel welcome. Bettman believes gore sells, and thus the NHL had to be thrilled when those who stayed to the very end of last night's blowout were "rewarded" when Ryan Getzlaf ended up skating around with blood all over his face courtesy of a high-stick from Kirk Maltby..

That is the image the NHL has proven over and over it not only embraces, but believes must be part of its product.

It wants to be seen as an outlaw league. And so it is.

The league that said Chris Neil's headhunting play on Chris Drury was good hockey and shrugged at Alfredsson's blatantly illegal and unpenalized hit on Saturday will thus likely shrug again when it comes to Pronger.

After all, Holmstrom deserved it, right? He'd played well, scored a goal and helped the Wings jump ahead 4-0.

In the philosophy espoused widely in the NHL and preached every Saturday night on Hockey Night in Canada, a vicious, cowardly hit from behind was the correct response from Pronger and the Ducks.

Can't let those Wings get away with playing better hockey, after all. Unfortunately, the league's officials also got the call wrong on the spot, penalizing Rob Niedermayer instead of Pronger. Niedermayer arrived at the same time, but Pronger did the damage.

So nothing is the expected response from the NHL today. If they puff out their chests and get all morally correct, Pronger might, just maybe, get a game.

And then Brian Burke will go utterly ballistic, if he hasn't already. The defence will be that this is a "man's game," that Pronger can't be held responsible because he's 6-foot-6 playing against shorter men and that Holmstrom is to blame for having his helmet done up ineffectively. Moreover, he returned to the game in the third period, and in the NHL, quick recovery is always held against a player.

There's an echo here, of course, from Burke's days running the Vancouver Canucks when that team repeatedly shot itself in the foot in the post-season largely because of a lack of discipline and focus. There's no question Burke has built a strong, skilled and very tough team in Anaheim, but his challenge, and that of his coach Randy Carlyle, is to make sure these Ducks don't Canuck themselves.

The culmination of that Vancouver craziness was, of course, Todd Bertuzzi's unforgettable attack on Steve Moore, although that wasn't in a playoff game. It was somewhat ironic, then, to see a very different Bertuzzi playing for the calm, composed Red Wings last night against Burke's Ducks.

Back to the hit. Sure, the stakes are high, and Pronger would be a big loss. But the stakes were also high for Holmstrom last night, and he deserves the protection of the NHL.

He deserves better than that which Steve Nash got from the NBA, that's for sure. Robert Horry will undoubtedly be getting congratulations all around in the San Antonio locker room for not only laying out Nash with a cheap shot, but then enticing two Phoenix players - Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw - to leave the bench by a matter of feet.

So Horry, a support player, gets two games while Stoudamire and Diaw, both key Suns, get one each. Advantage Spurs.

Could David Stern have blown this one worse?

Then again, lets hold any condemnation of Stern until we see what Bettman's league has to say today.

Mats overload

DAVID COOPER/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO

Mats Sundin meets the press after the end of the Leafs' season.

So this is the way it's going to be, huh?

Every week a crazy new Mats Sundin rumour. Last week he's going to have an artificial hip implanted, this week he's going to Djurdgarden to play for his former Swedish club team.

What's next? Mats not only spending time in Paris, but dating Paris once she gets out of the slammer?

Mats going to play minor league baseball? Mats off to live in an Australian yoga community? Mats being lured into Scientology by Tom Cruise? Mats off to climb Everest?

It's like Toronto, or those of us in the Toronto media, just can't stand the inactivity of the Leafs since their season ended, just can't stand the fact that Sundin's contract situation hasn't been cleared up and nailed down.

For his part, Leaf GM John Ferguson returned from the world championships in Moscow to find himself immersed in more Mats controversy surrounding reports that Djurdgarden was making a pitch for his captain.

"We have an option next year for his services. That subject (returning to Sweden) has not come up in any of our conversations," said Ferguson. "He has consistently stated his desire to remain and play in Toronto. That has not changed. There's no reason for me to speculate on anything beyond that."

Here's the facts. The Leafs hold an option on Sundin for next season at $4.5 million, but it comes with a cap hit of $6.3 million because that's the average of his salary for all the years under his current contract. The Leafs would like to sign him to a new two-year extension at a figure that would reduce the cap hit, but at the same time pay him more.

If Djurdgarden were to offer Sundin a deal, the Leafs could simply pick up the option. In other words, it's not like he's a free agent. Yes, some Swedes - Mats Naslund, Hakan Loob - have gone home to play while they still could play in the NHL, but they remain the exception. Sundin spends little time in Sweden these days and has no children, often the reason cited by players to return home.

Last year he supposedly didn't want to come back to Toronto. This year he was supposedly facing career-ending hip surgery. Now he's supposedly going back to Sweden to play.

By saying nothing, Sundin seems to create more chatter than he does when he's in town talking on a daily basis.