Slow and Easy or Fast and Furious?

With Cliff Fletcher poised to take over the Maple Leafs - the official team announcement came just before noon today that John Ferguson Jr. has been fired - the interesting question is this; how will Fletcher try to fix this team?

To answer that, it's worthwhile to look at his first moves when he was hired the last time to run the Leafs, back in July, 1991.

The Leafs were coming off a 57-point season and had missed the playoffs five of 10 years, meaning they were probably in worse shape then compared to now.

Fletcher, then 55, came in with a five-year, $4 million contract, albeit one that wasn't set in stone until the following September when Steve Stavro gave up his battle to have Fletcher either fired or reined in.

"There's not going to be any quick cures," vowed Fletcher.

So what was his first big move? Did he stockpile draft picks and prospects?

Uh, not quite.

Instead, in September he swung a deal with Edmonton to bring in three veterans - goalie Grant Fuhr, winger Glenn Anderson and forward Craig Berube - in a whopper of a deal. Fuhr was coming off a shortened year due to a drug suspension, but Fletcher proclaimed him to be the "cornerstone to a new foundation."

In exchange, the Leafs surrendered a package of young players including 23-year-old Vince Damphousse, Luke Richardson (22), Scott Thornton (20) and goalie Peter Ing (22).

Damphousse retired in 2004 with a Stanley Cup ring from Montreal and 432 NHL goals, 314 for teams other than the Leafs.

Richardson has played 1,385 NHL games and is still skating for Ottawa. Thornton is also still playing and gunning for 1,000 games-played.

And what about the three players the Leafs received?

Berube was moved four months later in the monstrously successful Doug Gilmour deal with Calgary. Fuhr was peddled 18 months later in another deal that brought short-term help to the Leafs in sniper Dave Andreychuk. Anderson lasted all the way until March, 1994 before being traded to New York.

As of today, Fletcher now runs the Leafs again. But will he take the same approach?

Stay tuned.

Comments

[HC]

Awesome. Nothing says moving forward like...moving back??? Wait, now that doesn't sound right...

[Relocated Leafs Fan]

Damian Cox,

Why is it that MLSE is persistent on becoming a mediocre organization? Please explain to me how Richard Peddie, a REAL ESTATE AGENT, believes he knows something about hockey. Why do political lobbyist smiles and handshakes continue to be the only face of Maple Leaf Nation.

Richard Peddie created a model of good goverment in installing a leader with complete autonomy in Bryan Colangelo. How could it be that when the same opportunity presented itself in Scotty Bowman, he sat lame duck. Was he afraid that he might hire someone who blatantly knows the game better than himself and might, I don't know, succeed?

The problems with the Leafs are so clear cut a result of the tampering of MLSE. This has been the problem, as you chronicaled in your book, since the late 60's. If you see MLSE, please ask them to un-butoon their stiffling high high-collars and go on vacation. Fletcher will doom the franchise again and another opportunity to move forward will yet again bring us back to mediocrity.

Dis-enchanted to say the leafs

[Don]

Damien, I hear your misgivings with regard to Fletcher. I think the Leafs could have done better as well - but maybe this was the only agreeable course of action at this time which could pass the Board. If Fletcher conducts ba reckless fire sale then the team will be hurt even further. He has to have the cojones to say, "I'm listening to offers for Sundin, but if you lowball me he's either going nowhere or to your rival." Bottom line, though is that Ferguson had to go.

[Warren]

Another concern is how much leeway Richard Peddie and MLSE have given to Fletcher to do anything. He shouldn't be allowed to make trades for older "talent" or take on lengthy contracts, since it can effectively limit the options of the next GM. Shouldn't his role simply be to pave the way for the next GM by stockpiling draft picks and prospects, while opening up cap space? If so, MLSE hired the wrong man for the job.

And what's with Peddie denying Ferguson was fired and then 2 hours later announcing his firing? It's the last comical chapter in Ferguson's departure. What a complete lack of class. Even if Ferguson didn't do that well, he didn't deserve such shoddy treatment from a CEO who has done a much, much worse job. Step 1 in the off-season, before hiring another new GM, should be getting a real hockey person to replace Peddie.

[Conn Smythe]

Obviously you won't be objective in Fletcher's 2nd stint as a GM since you have already voiced your opinion that he was the wrong choice.

I had to laugh when you questioned Fletcher's trading ability in a previous article(in reference to his trading away of Brett Hull - even though you completely glossed over his building of a young, dynamic Calgary team that won the Stanley Cup - say, how many cups have you won, Damien?)

In reference to your latest 'blog', you mention his trade for 1 HOF'er (and Anderson should be in the HOF).

"In exchange, the Leafs surrendered a package of young players including 23-year-old Vince Damphousse, Luke Richardson (22), Scott Thornton (20) and goalie Peter Ing (22)"

Well, Damphousse was the only one who amounted to anything. Richardson is not a top 4 defenseman, and Thornton is a solid 3rd, 4th liner.

If anything, you should be critical of Toronto's draft record.

I'm not a fan of Fletcher (I remember his time here post '94), but give the guy a chance to do what he has been hired for, before you criticize him.

[james cunningham]

The MLSE board meeting was yesterday and the GM fired today. Please don't tell me that they had to wait 2 weeks to do what they should have weeks ago to fit into the board's schedule - that would make me feel worse than I already do being a lif long Leafs fan...James

[Sanj]

I don't understand how bringing Cliffy back is gonna help.
1. He can't be trader Cliff in this new salary cap world.
2. Any long term development wouldn't be in his best interest cause of age.
3. He still would have to convince a few players to drop their no movement clauses.
4. Has Fletcher even kept up with today's NHL?

The only advantage I see Cliff having over JFJ is that Cliff knows more about hockey.

[mark]

Hey Damien, I'm surprised you didn't mention Peddie's press conference. Here's a gem of quote: "As all of our general managers have had, he will have the autonomy and responsibility for all hockey decisions ...". Wow. This guy should take his act on the road. He'd knock 'em dead at the comedy clubs.

[Richard]

If memory serves correctly, Fletcher brought in Grant Fuhr because his philosophy is to build a team starting with goaltending. At that point in the early 90s, the Leafs had borderline, at best, goaltending. With Felix Potvin on the horizon, you needed something of a veteren goaltender to stablize the Leafs. They got that in Grant Fuhr and later in Potvin. (The Current Leafs have a descent goaltender in Vesa Toskala.)

However, you have to give to get. Damphousse was the key player in that deal. The others are players that you can get in droves. Defensive Defenceman are great to have, but GMs want the Prongers, Lidstroms and Niedermayers. And what has Thornton contributed in goals, hes a 3rd or 4th liner. (a few current Leafs come to mind when talking 3rd or 4th linemen)

The next move, was to bring in a bona-fide scoring centreman.(again part of Fletcher's building philosophy) You had an underachieving Gary Leeman, who some still thought had some goals left in him. And with Gilmour having some off ice issues in Calgary, it was a nice idea to grab at someone who was still in the peak of his career. A Leeman for Gilmour swap wasn't reasonable, so it became a multiplayer deal, with Calgary throwing in some fringe players. The key is to get the best player, and Fletcher did just that.

So I say both of those beginning moves were a benefit to Fletcher and to the Leafs. Fletcher will move Sundin, but will get a current young centreman in return as a apart of a package deal.

Remember, this team will do as well as upper management will let it. As long as OTPP majority owner Jim Leetch will support Richard Peddie and his dumb ideas on how to run a hockey team, no GM will be completely safe or unfettered.

[Bruce]

I think this is just another example of why the Leafs will never, ever again win a Stanley Cup.
The rest of the GM's must be rolling on the floor laughing, rubbing their hands in glee.

It is said that one of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

I've said in the past that as long as Alfredson is playing with the Sen's I can't be a fan....well this just might help me change my mind.

[SufferingSuccotash]

In professional sports, as in politics, perception is everything. The perception that Peddie and Co. want to create is that they care and that they are doing something. Something, anything, is better than nothing. Is there an upside to this move, other than perception of action? If there is, it is not visible to any long-suffering Leaf fan.

[chris]

If Fletcher is actually doing this on an interim basis, then I don't see how much progress he can make as a caretaker GM in the short term.

One thing is for certain though, with the salary cap era already in place in the NHL, Fletcher is going to have a more difficult time making the types of trades he used to make when he was running the Leafs a decade ago. This doesn't look good for the Leafs right now.

[bob]

i hope that Fletcher has the same approach as he did when he "cleaned" house as you described in your blog. Repeating the same mistake will continue to sink this team, which is a sweet joy for all hocky fans outside of the big smoke.

You can do it Fletcher!!

[Sean]

Once again, Damien is looking back to Fletcher's previous GM stint and using that as the foundation for assumptions about what this time will bring. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

Fletcher is being brought in as an interim GM with a specific focus on trading veterans, shedding contracts and stockpiling as much youth and picks and possible. This is the job description. Fletcher knows it, the fans know it, and Damien knows it too. Yet apparently we're going to be subjected to several days (weeks?) of "here's what Cliff did 16 years ago" and "draft schmaft" and whatever other soundbites he can find in the archives.

Please Damien, stop it. You should be better than this. You're going to criticize the Leafs at every turn no matter what they do -- this has already been well-established. But there's well-deserved criticism to be had, rather than resorting to lazy work like this.

This sort of "analysis" is completely transparent. And frankly, it's getting old.

[Vic]

Damien, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Leaf fan who dismisses any and all criticism of the team no matter what, and I agree with most of what you write, but I think you are skewing things a little unfairly here where it comes to Cliff. Cliff did what the franchise desparately needed him to do at the time of his first incarnation here, which was regenerate some faith in the team and bring some respectability back. I think in many ways the best trade he ever made, might have been his ultimate downfall. The Gilmour trade that triggered back to back trips to the semi-finals and but for a few bounces here or there, a possible finals appearance, set the bar a lot higher and a lot quicker than probably even he expected. After that, it would have been a tad unpopular with fans and media to suddenly dismantle and begin "building". And who knows what orders he was really under from Stavros who never wanted him to begin with. Eventually he was ordered to cut salary, his deal for Gretzky was rejected by ownership and that was pretty much all she wrote for Cliff. I think we have to give him a chance here, and see what he accomplishes in a completely different scenario from the last time around. I think you have to look at his complete history in the game of hockey to get, not just with this team or that team, to get a complete picture.

[Craig Alleva]

You can't compare the moves Fletcher made back then with what he will do now. The salary cap has changed everything, and he even eluded to this in the press conference when he said that you can't go out and buy players like you used to, you have to develop a good core of young players.

That being said, he's not going to go out and sign a whole ton of vets. It sounded a lot like he has been given the authority to clean house.

[Andrew]

Any way you slice it, this is at least a step in a direction. If they ditch Peddie, I'd say they're on a roll.

[PPP]

That is a pretty disingenuous article Damien. Fletcher emphasised many times that he is coming into a vastly different situation not only with the Leafs but in the league as a whole.

He re-iterated the importance of drafting well and focusing on developing your own talent as the key now for creating a uninterrupted chain of success since teams could no longer just spend to camouflage mistakes.

He also made it very clear that he is coming in as the short-term fix to evaluate the situation and set the table for the full-time new GM/President who he hopes will be in the job for a decade.

Every indication he gave was that he was coming in with an eye towards building for the future and you have decided to continue your articles in the same disingenuous tone. It wouldn't hurt to try reporting the truth instead of trying to dream up scenarios that pretend to confirm your half-baked assertions.

What happened to the impetus for change being lost?

[Dwight Irwin]

I agree with you Damien, I don't think Fletcher is the right man for the job, unless he's turned over some mystical new Leaf (punny guy, I know).

Maybe he will trade for great young prospects and re-fill a cupboard that has been bare for my entire lifetime (28 years).

That's what he should do, but it will be the opposite of everything he's ever done.

It's hard to be confident he's an entirely different manager.

[zack]

Hello Damien,

I enjoy the column, thank you for your insight. I have a question for you regarding the meaning of the word "autonomy"

From the dictionary:

1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.

2. the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.

3. a self-governing community.

Mr. Peddie may have a great future in politics as he appears to pocess the ability to change the meaning of a word to fit his own ideals (ie, no sexual relations with that....)

He continued to state that JFJ had full autonomy and that the next unfortunate sole will also have the same autonomy. He, JFJ, had was required to only present his "moves", "strategy" to the board and that at no time did they decline his proposed actions.

I would argue that this is not autonomy. Anyone taxed with such restrictions will tend to tailor their strategy to one that will meet the approval of the board or have limited resistance.

Autonomy means that you have no one to answer to. Once the budget is set, then autonomy must kick in.
This is a joke, and unfortunately the next GM will be shackled with the legacy of being selected by Peddie.

Regards
Zack

[Chris Smith]

From Kevin McGran's article:

"Sports attorney Gord Kirke and I will form the search team that will ultimately recommend the next president and general manager to the board of directors. (Fletcher) will serve as a resource to us in that process," Peddie said.

Does anyone else find this to be the most horrifying idea ever? Two snake-oil salesmen trying to play Hockey Gods...... save us now....

[andrew mitrovica]

Hello Damien,

You have, of course, been right all along about this hysterical concoction called MLSE. Your contrarian view of Mr. Fletcher is also right on the mark; principally about what his hiring speaks to about the inept powers that be that govern MLSE. I'm listening to the radio bemused as one predictable cheerleader after another speaks glowingly of Mr. Fletcher's hiring, thus deflecting attention from the fatal dysfunction from Peddie and company and the true meaning that this limp "shake-up" represents. This band of idiots makes the Keystone Kops look like a stellar police force. This organization does need a interim GM - whatever that is. It needs a lobotomy. But that will not happen because despite all the rhetoric about "your Toronto Maple Leafs," this sad hockey club remains the playpen of small men, with small minds. All we ask is that you keep speaking truth to power and continue your consistently good work holding these chumps to some measure of account.

Best.

Andrew Mitrovica

[David]

Retreads. That's all the Leafs seem to get. Don't get me wrong, Fergie needed to go, but so did/does Peddie. So what was the big brain storming sessions the last couple of months? Bringing Fletcher back!. I could have made that decision, and for a hell of a lot less than Peddie gets paid.
Cliff: since you're only going to be in the job a few months, ask Mats for permission to shop him to a contender and let him try to get his cup before he's in a walker. The up side of this is obvious, prospects in return, not old worn-out has beens. Don't worry about what the fans or management thinks, you're only in the job for a year and a half so try something really radical like actually improving this team.

[Roger Shantz]

What is next? Bringing back Quinn or Burns to coach? Hey, how about Wendel, he's available. Maybe a side dish of Yanic, Gilmour and every other former Leaf player that has played for the Laughs more than once. The next original thought that Peddie and company have will be there first one. As a lifelong Leaf fan (45 years) I have one thing to say: go Wings

[Earl]

I don't agree with the firing of JFJ. The Leafs need a rebuilding program which is what he wanted to do last year. The real solution is to get rid of Peddie, keep the board out of hockey business and fire the entire scouting staff. The organization is an embarrasment to professional sports. Maybe MLSE can buy the Detroit Lions. They would be a perfect match. They haven't won in over 40 years and are not likely to win for the next 40 years. Look how often they changed management.