Thursday Mail Bag
It does make you wonder.
Yesterday in The Spin, I wrote about the Leafs needing to give chances to young players down the stretch and to give Andrew Raycroft an occasional start – once every three games – as a means of taking a look at those players and sensibly taking advantage of their predicament in the standings.
To some, this was a suggestion to “tank,” which I’ve always taken to mean quit or surrender or try not to win.
These are NHL players on the roster, yet some believe playing those players is tantamount to trying not to win. Winning the next game is all that matters, apparently, rather than taking a longer view and understanding that steps backwards now can create opportunities to move forward later.
Was Philly tanking last year when they traded away Peter Forsberg and Alexei Zhitnik and played younger players? The nature of pro sport is that the best young talent is made available to the worst teams, and to fail to understand and take advantage of that system whenever possible is simply being blind.
Now on to this week’s mail bag:
Q: Hi Damien,
Please help. My hockey Ego had written off this season way back in November. Not so much because the Leafs were a bad team (which they were) but because on paper as well as on the ice there were (and continue to be) at least 8 teams in the Eastern conference which are superior to the boys in blue. I also knew way back in the fall of ’07 that if this team wanted to build up for the future it was going to come at expense of moving Mats Sundin. Well, the trade deadline has come and gone and Mats Sundin is still the captain of this hockey team. Kudos to him for not taking the easy way out.
That being said, Sundin has stirred and awoken my hockey Id: the very part of my sports-brain which seems to control 90% of 'Leafs Nation' 24/7. Prior to, and since the deadline, Mats has played at a level that just seems uncanny for a man his age. Cliches aside, he has defied his critics, placed the fate of the team on his aging shoulders, and seems intent on dragging them into the playoffs despite the fact that most of his supporting cast wouldn't crack the 3rd line on a real contender's roster.
My Ego tells me he'll end up a tragic hero and ultimately fail as the odds seem impossible. And yet, my Id continues to hope, knowing what a great storyline it would be if Mats could get us into the post-season (not just on the team level, but because it would put egg on MLSE's face) because really, almost anything can happen at that point.
What I need you to do, kind sir, is:
a) to snap me out of this newfound optimism. and
b) tell me what the chances of Sundin being nominated for the Hart trophy are. He's obviously not the best player in the league, but other than Ovechkin, I can't think of anyone more deserving.
Dav Werminski, Richmond Hill
A: Well, talk about laying your Jungian self on the line. First of all, it’s not wrong as a fan to hope your team makes the playoffs, but the Leafs aren’t going to. Moreover, if they did, it certainly wouldn’t put egg on the faces of the MLSE brass. To them, it would be evidence that they know what they’re doing and a chance for playoff revenue.
Second, Sundin isn’t going to come close to winning the Hart. In fact, I’d say he’s not even the Leaf MVP this season. To me, that honour should go to Vesa Toskala.
Q: So can we qualify Mats Sundin as loser in the NHL? I know he’s got Hall of Fame numbers but at best he gone to 2 Conference Finals, largely not to his play but due to the play of his goalie, Cujo. Plus I believe he has missed the playoffs, going to be 5 times with the Leafs and another 3 years with the Nordiques, so in is 18th season or so he has missed the playoffs 8 times, almost 45% of his career.
I think its easy to be the best player on bad teams and the fact the he did not want to get traded to a contender proves he never will/never could win a championship in the NHL?
Ankur Arora, Mississauga
A: Sundin’s no loser. He won gold at the Olympics. In the NHL, he’s been a reliable, durable and productive player for many years. He’s not Mario or Wayne or even Stevie Y, but he’s a Hall of Famer. Accepting a trade would have helped the organization, yes. But Sundin earned the right to stay and complete the terms of his current contract.
Q: Hey Damien, I just wanted to know what you think the best gameplan would be for the Leafs going into the off-season. Who would you try to move? Who would you keep? Do you think Fletcher (or whoever else is in charge) will actually make the difficult decisions like buying out McCabe and Tucker? I know that Wellwood and Stajan are RFAs next year, what do you think the Leafs are going to do with them? And what about Blake? Do you try to trade him or keep him around and hope he has a better season?
Julianna Ruffolo, Angus, Ont.
A: Julianna, I can’t go through the entire roster, but here’s what I can say. This organization has to get a new president and GM in as soon as possible. The decisions you’ve mentioned cannot be left to Fletcher and a caretaker administration. Why buy out Tucker, for example, if the new boss thinks he can trade him or make him better? So the game plan has to be to get the new front office team in place ASAP. If this thing drags into July or August, it’s a joke.
Q: Damien,
Yourself and others have commented on the disconnect between the Leaf hockey club and their management. The first striving for an unlikely playoff spot and the latter hoping for a free-fall. Well you can't expect the players to not try so this becomes more about the coach than anything.
I would have to put myself in Maurice's corner on this one. If I were him I'd be trying to wring every last point out of this team. He has no endorsement from the new GM and I don't think he wants to start spending time with the grand kids - so he's keeping the pedal down, until he either gets an extension (ain't gonna happen) or gets fired. You've made your views on this clear but how would it look if they pitched Maurice to install an interim stooge to put the reigns on the team and land it softly at the bottom of the standings?
Ross Maudsley, Richmond Hill
A: I don’t think there’s any way the Leafs can look worse than they are now. Moreover, Maurice coached a non-playoff team last year and has coached this team to bottom third of the NHL standings. His ultimate fate isn’t going to be tied to the final 14 games and how many of those games he wins.
Q: Damien: The management of MLSE has shown in the past that they are not shy about doling out huge amounts of cash to repair serious misjudgments. I am referring to the millions spent by the Raptors to rid themselves of Hakeem Olajuwon, Alonzo Mourning and Lenny Wilkens. Since the Leafs have essentially put an extra $20 million or so yearly in profits into the MLSE coffers due to the salary cap restrictions, how likely is it that they will use this money to pay off the likes of Kubina, Tucker and possibly McCabe? How much of a cap hit does the team take in such a case?
Paul Ingersoll, Indian River, Ont.
A: The cap hit can be spread out over a number of years, but that also means it's an impediment for that long. It’s a lot easier to buy out Tie Domi and Ed Belfour than it is to do the same with players on huge, long-term deals. The number one objective has to be to trade as many of the Muskoka Five as possible and get something back in return. Buyouts are a last resort, and I’m not sure there’s a point to using it unless you have a larger plan in place.
Q: Do you ever get legitimate, non-Leaf-bashing questions? How about two: How do you think the East playoff picture will play out for the last 3 or 4 seeds? What do you make of the Ottawa situation? Personally I blame Murray for not backing his coach and not properly disciplining Emery.
Brad Hewton, London
A: I get some non-Leaf questions, but there’s a ton of passion and interest about that hockey club, that’s for sure.
The east is so tight it’s hard to say. Washington is pushing hard, and it’s looks like both the Caps and the Carolina Hurricanes may qualify for the playoffs, leaving one of Philly, Buffalo or even the Rangers out. We’ve talked about the Ottawa situation many times, and I’ll say this. Ray Emery hasn’t been a good teammate, but there’s a lot more wrong with that team than just a tardy goalie. I just don’t know if you’re going to win with Jason Spezza and Dany Heatley combining for $14.5 million in payroll every season for the foreseeable future.
Q: When did Brian Burke become the T.O. media answer to the problems that plague the Leafs? Good with the media yes, however, after so many years falling out in the first round in Vancouver, he picks up Bryan Murray's Ducks, adds a Brad May or two and wins Mr. Murray's cup. Does Burke really have the resume to re-build a team without direction like the Leafs? I suppose the name at the top of the resume is more important at this point than the skills and references at the bottom.
Jared Brown, Toronto
A: Well, winning a Cup gets you to the top of most lines in the hockey world, particularly those that have had 41 years to form.
Q: Hi Damien.
I've been going over the whole Leafs rebuilding/tanking the season saga and one thing that strikes me is that everyone seems to think Stamkos is the miracle solution to being competitive next year. The "plan" everyone seems to want is to get Stamkos, shed contracts and be good to go.
I think the tragedy for the Leafs is that they haven't hit rock bottom yet. They are too good this year to finish in the bottom four, they don't have young guys in the system, they have too many expensive veterans on the cap in 08-09 (and might very well go out and sign more over the summer).
Isn't it more realistic to aim to truly hit rock bottom next year (there doesn't look like there's much to look forward to anyway) aim for Tavares, and be in a much better position with the cap and with talent to start the 09-10 season?
Larry Tonet, Toulon, France
A: Larry, I’d say that’s probably pretty close with what’s going to happen, whether the Leafs want it that way or not. I don’t think Stamkos is a savior, but he would be a very useful building block, that’s for sure.
Q: Hi Damien,
I thought your analysis of the Richards/Hossa trades were spot on. As a Habs fan, I was relieved that we didn't get Hossa - why mortgage the future for a guy you might lose in the summer who's known for folding like a cheap suit come playoff time?
Which leads me to my question. Given he was apparently available, I think that Olli Jokinen was actually the best player up for grabs at the trade deadline. He's "Sundinesque" - big, fast, skilled, classy - so why didn't he inspire the same frenzy in NHL GMs that Hossa, and to some degree Richards, did?
Geoff Read, Thunder Bay, Ont.
A: Well, he’s 29 years old and has never played a playoff game. He has two more years on his contract at $5.5 million and $5.25 million, and teams are leery of term. Finally, I think Florida wanted to keep him to make a last charge at the playoffs.
Click here to send Damien a question and he'll answer a selection in his mail bag every Thursday in this space.
Damien, I was thrilled when the Leafs took on Maurice because I thought that he was over his head in his role with Carolina, but that it would have been a great learning experience for him at someone else's expense. I took the fact that he was willing to go to the AHL as proof-positive of a deep-thinker who knew what he needed to do (how was his record with the Marlies?).
Today, I see through the man. He is continually outcoached - his team is seldomly well prepared for the games, and he never seems to have the right type of personnel on the ice at the right time. (When I saw Darcy Tucker on at the end of a game a few weeks back, I got excited thinking that the Leafs were showcasing him because nobody would want him on the ice in that situation. Would they???) Imagine my surprise to see Mr Minus out there in the same situation after the trade deadline.
Maurice is one heck of a talker. His diatribe is downright philosophical at times, but it seems clear that he's the only one in that dressing room listening. The excuses just keep coming and coming and coming..."He's banged up, but he's working through it". "We did some good things, but Martin was in a zone".
Maurice isn't developing the "kids" and doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the pace at the NHL level. It's time to join the TV analyst crew - if he was going to make the grade, he'd have done so with the number of chances he's had. Ferguson had a lieutenant and he should bear some of the responsibility...
Why not turf him right now and let Laidlaw handle the team for the rest of the season? The new GM shouldn't have to hear all of his crap and he shouldn't be allowed to influence the new GM's opinion of his favourites (Tucker, McCabe, Steen, etc.)
Posted by: John | March 06, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I keep seeing McCabe's name come up in the same sentence as Tucker and Kubina. Disgruntled fans looking for movement in the summer. And the who Muskoka five thing includes McCabe as well. Frankly, I think that McCabe is overpriced, but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Tucker and Kubina. Of the so-called Muskoka five, here's how I would rank them. Tucker and Kubina... get rid of them asap. Sundin and McCabe are situational guys... if the price is right, sign Sundin again to help bring along the young guys....try to move McCabe, but don't give him away. He's playing well for over 20 minutes a game. That's worth a lot in today's NHL. As for Kaberle, he should not be moved unless some team makes an unbelievable offer. So, to all you 'fans' screaming for blood, use your head and think about what you are likely to get in return for these guys. Don't paint all 5 with the same brush.
Posted by: mark | March 06, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Sundin is a loser, he is won nothing in The NHL ,no 100 point seasons while in Toronto, no major awards etc.. if he was playing in another market he would hardly be mentioned. Toronto fans are a joke, MVP ? come on, start watching other players and teams. Pull your heads out of the fish bowl you live in. Toronto is certainly not the center of the hockey universe, Montreal can claim that. There was a players poll out recently in Sports illustrated on who had the best fans. The results of 365 players polled was.
Montreal Canadiens......35%
Minnesota Wild......13%
Calgary Flames......11%
Vancouver Canucks......6%
Edmonton Oilers......6%
Toronto Maple Leafs......5%
San Jose Sharks......5%
New York Rangers......4%
Philadelphia Flyers......4%
Detroit Red Wings......4%
Every seat in Montreal is full every game by a real person and the Tv ratings are higher for hab games as well. Montreal has a great young team on the rise and in the near future there will be Stanley cup parades in Montreal again. You leaf fans can watch if you want.
As for sundin, I agree that he has been a durable player and has a long run with decent numbers in the regular season but nothing out standing. The question is why is that ? the answer is that He is never in the playoffs and the times he has been there it's been early exit as he come up flat when it counts. He can't take the pressure and is not interested in winning. He likes to get his $$ go back to Sweden once the season is over. He is not interested in wining the cup. That's why he didn't want to leave Toronto and play on a real contender. The playoff grind takes a great toll on players and his lack of same has extended his career.
That's also the reason why he will never be entered in the Hockey hall of fame . That's unless the leafs stack the cards like the liberals stack the senate.
Posted by: Dramer | March 06, 2008 at 03:00 PM
"tell me what the chances of Sundin being nominated for the Hart trophy are. He's obviously not the best player in the league, but other than Ovechkin, I can't think of anyone more deserving."
Only some poor blind Laff fan from where else - Richmond Hill - could ever make a statement like that!!!!! Ovechkin, then Sundin.
Yep that's the heirarchy in NHL MVP status. Holy $#%$#@#$%!!!
What makes Laff fans so retarded??? And they wonder why they get ridiculed so badly.......hey fella,,,,stop watching Laff games and take a peek at some other teams playing,,,,you will start to see ow good hockey is played by really good hockey players.
Posted by: J. Boyd | March 06, 2008 at 03:26 PM
decent analysis guys...better than the usual crap here...but until i read one person echoing my mantra re. special teams killing the team over the past 10 years, i will, to my dismay, be a voice in the wilderness.
i mean i grew up in toronto, so i know how moronic most of the leaf fan nation is, but still this surprises me. are ALL of you unable to critically analyze a hockey game? seriously, it is one of the least complicated sports on the planets...contrast a hockey playbook with a football one...how dumb are all of you?!!
Posted by: norm depalma | March 06, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Compare a hockey playbook against a football playbook? Are you kidding me?
I will admit, football is one of the most, if not the most, technical sports in the world, but it is not nearly as complicated as hockey.
Why? Glad you asked.
1) Football is play-by-play. Rarely do you see a play made up on the spot, if it is it's out of desperation on the field.
2) Hockey is random. Powerplays and penalty kills are the only time you routinely see set plays played out the way it was designed in the dressing room.
To be good at hockey you have to be much better at adapting to the situation, reading the play and even knowing how a specific puck will bounce of MSG boards versus ACC boards.
One of the least complicated? There is no such thing in the sports world. I hate soccer and I hate basketball, but I would certainly class them as complicated as both hockey and football. I would almost say football is the least complicated due to it's painstakingly planed out, play-by-play no-room-for improvisation methodical style. The playbook is more complicated yes, but only because it is all there to take into account within the 3 seocnds of play before the whistle.*zzzzz*
Posted by: Kyle | March 07, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Hey Boyd and Dramer,
If you guys weren't so busy trying to desperately broaden your hockey horizons by looking outside Leafs Nation, you might have noticed that my suggestion was not that Sundin WIN the Hart, but that he get nominated.
Why would i make such a 'ridiculous' statement? Well, first to annoy you. Next, I was implying that his nomination is only deserved IF the Leafs make the playoffs. Finally, think up a list of nominees (Ovechkin, Crosby and Brodeur not included) and show me a guy who's been more valuable to his team than Sundin. What's that? They've all got supporting casts? Right.
And that, ladies, is in itself another reason for why he will make it to the Hall of Fame. Let's not kid yourselves, Sundin has proved with the Swedish Gold medal what he can do with a solid supporting cast. Newsflash: Nobody makes it to the Stanley Cup finals playing with Jonas Hoglund, or a past-his-prime Mikael Renberg, aging Gary Roberts, bad-hip Mogilny etc. etc.
Posted by: Dav | March 07, 2008 at 08:34 AM
Norm: Yes it is frustrating to read opinions by others, especially attached to that dreaded name "Leafs Nation." Aside from your reference to special teams, where is your analysis? Here is mine; When this team was winning 5-7 years ago it was already flawed severely. Stellar goaltending brought the team into the playoffs and deep to the conference finals a couple of times, but when that goaltending ran out the team performed as it should - nuff said. No young players in the Quinn years coming up and becoming STARS, just poor trades such as the Owen Nolan one. This team has not been in the ballpark since the early 90s. It is kind of like predicting a recession - we are only told several months after one has started. The Leafs team peaked in 2002 or so and "Leafs Nation" figured this out 1 month ago.
One other new problem; would any veteran want to sign here and go through what Mats did next February - this could become a spring ritual. On the other hand, that might be a blessing in disguise...
Great column and blog Damion and you are right - the Leafs should be thinking long term and play their young guys here and Raycroft occasionally.
Posted by: robcap | March 07, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Robcap, an analyst delves beyond the glaringly obvious. For example, when discussing the semi-successful Quinn team of a few years ago, an analyst would say that the Leafs were terrific 5 on 5 (see the stats) because Quinn had them playing at three quarters speed---instead of playing the Avalanche style of full borner controlled mayhem, the Leafs were playing to their strengths--allowing skill players like Sundin to play their best.
An analyst would explain that many great players play at three quarters speed--enabling them to make skilled plays without losing control. The problems the Leafs faced in those years lay in playing teams (Sabres) able to play faster and with control...But even then, the Leafs could have won but for their lack of specialty teams prowess.
An analyst wouldnt simply trot out the banal 'the leafs signed too many over the hill players'. Teams (i.e. Dallas Stars) have won with over the hillers---if the coaching and system properly fit the over the hillers.
As for the moron above, who considers hockey more complicated because it is spontaneous---I don't know where to start...maybe someone else here can take the time to explain how non-scripted does not trump scripted for complications. I guess your analysis would prove that vollyeball is infinitely more complicated than even hockey because it is almost all spontaneous (even though almost every play in volleyball involves the same serve, bump, volley, spike series) or how about horse shoes..that is completely 'spontaneous'...or shooting hockey cards...oy
Posted by: norm depalma | March 07, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Dear jackass (I mean Dramer),
Maybe you've got it the other way around. Maybe instead of looking down on those that don't look "outside the fishbowl", perhaps you should get over yourself and take a look at someone's career subjectively without taking into account the crest on their sweater before you make ignorant remarks..
So what exactly about Sundin's resume that doesn't qualify him for the Hall? Is it the 1,317 points in 1,300 games, good for 30th all-time? Is it the 74 points in 83 playoff games (which pretty much completely negates your argument that he shrinks in the playoffs) Is it that he holds every major offensive record for one of the oldest franchises in the league? Is it his NHL-record for overtime goals?
Look, you can hate on Sundin and the Leafs all you want, but the fact is this. Sundin's Hall of Fame credentials are stronger than any Montreal Canadien since you guys rode Roy out of town, and you know it. I suggest you do a little research on what qualifies someone for the Hall (because by your logic, Joe Juneau is a shoo-in because he had 102 points in his second season, and 451 in the next 12 season COMBINED), and kindly remove your head from your a$$.
Posted by: Clark Aitken | March 07, 2008 at 02:29 PM
No, Philly didn't tank when they traded Forsberg and played young players. It's because that's who they had left.
Toronto dealt Kilger and Gill. The core of the team is intact - so you bench these guys to give Robbie Earl ice time?
Like it or not, these players are on the roster, so you use them. If you don't, the integrity of the game is in question. Fans are paying, you have the players - this isn't a choice. Maurice is coaching for his life, his reputation. How can he be asked to ice players that WILL reduce his chances to win? He can't be asked.
If the Leafs really want that - then Maurice has to go, now. And an interim coach can play the AHL roster.
Posted by: Wardo | March 07, 2008 at 09:44 PM
It seems like everytime someone mentions Mats Sundin in a positive manner there is always some Canadiens fans who reply by ripping on the Leaf captain. I would just like to know what has the Montreal captain, Saku Koivu, done that is just so icredible or amazing that gives you guys the right to criticize another team's captain? He has never had a 100 point season (in fact, 75 is his career high), has never taken his team past the second round, has never had an amazing playoff, and has never hit any milestones worth mentioning. Now I am not disputing that Montreal has a better team this year, the standings don't lie. And I also respect and admire Koivu for overcoming his battle with cancer, something that very few can say. However, before people start hating on Sundin, look at your own captain/leader first, and in the case of Montreal fans and Koivu, we can all see that there is not much worth mentioning about him or his accomplishments.
Posted by: Max | March 07, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Well said, Wardo. Couldn't agree with you more.
This really isn't as complicated - or contradictory - as the spinmeister made it out to be in his "two rockets" column last week.
if you remember the initial press conference, Fletcher was brought in as a caretaker (up to 19 months) until the new GM is hired. (Even I will defend Dick Peddie on this point) I liked the move because you don't keep the man who put this mediocre team together - and created a salary cap mess- in place to undo the damage.
Fletcher did his assessment and decided substantial changes were required. Okay, that statement is wide open to a smart ass response like NO SH*&! but the point is: he did his due diligence.
He did what he could at the trade deadline and, while his frustration was obvious, at the very least he didn't inflict any further damage on the team. In fact, someone in Pittsburgh threw him a bone and he managed to get a second round pick for Hal Gill - remarkable. Obviously, more work needs to be done and major decisions made in the off-season.
In the meantime, the Leafs should ice the best team possible down the stretch for all the reasons you pointed out and then some. (And please, no further comparisons to the 40-man roster in baseball. All teams add minor leaguers in September but a baseball fan should know that non-contenders always field their "regular' line-up when facing teams still in contention down the stretch; and there's far more teams still in contention in hockey than in baseball so the analogy doesn't work.)
Besides, while I'm not about to slag Stamkos, I've never heard one person in the know suggest he is the next "great one". My understanding is that there is some depth to this draft but, regardless, the Hall of Fame is full of players who weren't taken in the top five.
To quote the great Herm Edwards "you play to win the game".
Posted by: Jamie | March 08, 2008 at 09:44 AM
As the president and CEO of the Leaf Haters' Club, I find this year's late-season twitching of the Leaf corpse to be particularly enjoyable. The Stanley Cup parade is being planned then cancelled on almost a daily basis as the faithful grasp to nano-thin shreds of optimism. Priceless.
But I digress. What has not yet been pointed out by media types so far is that based on the NHL's tiebreaking procedures, the Leafs must not only catch Philadelphia, but also surpass the Flyers because tying them in points won't be enough.
The first tiebreaker is overall wins in a season, and because the Leafs have more OT losses, conversely they have fewer wins than the Flyers.
The second tiebreaker is head-to-head record. The Flyers are 2-0 against the Leafs, so even one point by the Flyers in the home-and-home gives them that edge as well. Even a sweep leaves the two teams tied at 2-2 for the season.
The third tiebreaker is then goal differential for the season. The Leafs are -20 or so, the Flyers +20 or so. Barring a bunch of 6-0 wins for the Leafs, they'll lose that tiebreaker as well.
So that means the Leafs have to make up the difference plus one point.
Oh, and commentators seem to forget that the Flyers have a game in hand, so the eight-point gap might in reality be 10 points.
Posted by: Steve Buist | March 10, 2008 at 01:08 PM
This URL says it all. And leave Sundin alone he rocks as well as the rest of the team. Go after the ref's and the coach. Go Leafs go we can do it!!! Let's show everyone what we are made of. Don't let you coach or ref's cheat you from the playoffs. Matt Sundin as captain watch each call /play or non call and question it if your coach won't. I believe in the TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS.
Posted by: Jean | March 10, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Damien,
Harry Neal put it best: It's not about the team with the best players, it's about the players with the best team. That's what being a Leaf fan is all about. Sure I want Stamkos, but what I want more than that is a team that, win or lose, competes to the best of its ability every night. Say what you will about this band of misfits, they certainly give it their all.
Posted by: Moe Green | March 13, 2008 at 01:35 AM
Damien, take a look at any junior hockey game or Midget AAA and take note of how the players prepare for contact. They square their shoulders, bend their legs and lean into the hit. I'm not talking about center ice big bangs - I'm talking about regular incidental contact (sometimes just brushes), that occur when big guys going fast are near each other.
And it isn't just men's hockey; watch Laurie Dupuis enter a corner and see how she prepares for the contact. The women's game is a no-hit game, but you won't catch them getting surprised.
Then watch some tape of Carlo C's injuries. This guy has a death wish. He is constantly complaining every time he's touched even if it is incidental or fair. He never prepares for contact with the boards or the other players and his injury record shows it.
This guy has talent - no doubt about it - but coaches I've spoken with have pointed out that it's just plain lazy to not prepare for contact properly. Quit cutting him a break for his hard luck. He's reaping the results of his efforts.
Posted by: J Mac | March 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM