Looking Back, It All Seems So Rosy. . .

Call it rear-view mirror syndrome.

Despite 41 years of non-championship play - some call it endless losing - it is remarkable how some of those who were involved with the Maple Leafs as coaches and executives during those years are seen to have been enormous successes.

For reference, look how many people were happy to see Cliff Fletcher return in January, as though all the problems that existed back when he was fired as the team's GM in 1997 had just evaporated with time.

To these people, the return of Cliffy meant Dougie scoring on the wraparound on Cujo and all that was once good. That a '93 Leaf team couldn't win on home ice in Game 7 against a low-seeded L.A. team is simply forgotten.

Lots of people, it seems, would be more than happy if Fletcher stayed on as the permanent Leaf GM, or at least for another year.

Now, with the coaching job open, a Star poll tells us the top choice for Leaf head coach is. . .ta da!. . . Pat Burns, with 29 per cent of respondents saying Burns is the man for the job.

No. 3 on the list? Pat Quinn, with 14 per cent.

Failure, it's fair to say, never taints anyone with the Leafs. It seems to make them more attractive over time.

It's not just Star readers. Bob McCown of the Fan 590, a former colleague and a pal, went public this week with his choice for Leaf coach, and it was also Burns.

Now I like Bob. Smart guy. Understands the city and knows the teams. Wrote a book on hockey and everything.

But another person who thinks turning back the page to an era when winning didn't happen is going to make it happen now.

The rear-view mirror syndrome, usually accompanied by new reasons why the person in question didn't succeed last time, why it was somebody else's fault, and this time it'll work for sure. Just a special part of being a Torontonian, I suppose.

Comments

[Gabe Byatt]

touche damien...i took part in that poll and picked joel quenville - much to my chagrin he was not near the top of the list of choices...pat burns is a great coach and has been with a number of teams. In fact, nearly every team he's been on has been succesful under him and the harsh reality is that the leafs' players need to face a harsh reality. A coach who is bombastic and whom the players will be fearful of...or maybe one with a cattle prod. Really, people talk about the necessity of a potent powerplay, but really, when your PK is 29th/27th in the league, well, bad things happen. PK is a coach's responsibility...so instead of looking at the win loss records of a few of these guys, maybe someone with a forum for discussion could break down some indicator stats and see what various coaches actually accomplish. maybe.

[Marc Losier]

Spot on Damien, you were the only scribe in this city of losers to oppose the return of Fletch, and for legitimate reasons. Now, it seems, you were proved correct.

[Pete Nardi]

Damien,

This may be one of the most non-sensical things that you have ever written. How, you ask? On Thursday May 8th, you wrote the following:

These guys always make things so difficult. There are quality hockey people out there, and they are available. Hire one. Give him the necessary power. Then get out of the way.

Referring to 'these guys', you meant MLSE. So I guess when you said, "Hire one..." you REALLY meant to hire someone who has not been GM of the Leafs in the past, because if they didn't take us to a Cup then, they couldn't possibly do it now....im-freaking-possible, right? But isn't this a new NHL? Different players, different tempo of game, different rules, etc? Does that ever factor in when you write this stuff? No wait....I GOT IT. When you say, "Hire one...." you ACTUALLY mean that the only person whoMLSE could hire is you. You are the best man for the job of GM. Sometimes I think that when you write your columns, you have that song from The Karate Kid playing in the background: "You're the best around, and no one's gonna ever keep you down!"

[Josh]

I can't agree Damien. In 41 years, the Leafs haven't won a thing, and what you seem to be suggesting here is that anyone who has been in Toronto during that time should be stricken from the list right off the bat.

How many Stanley Cup-winning and multiple Jack Adams-winning coaches are on the market right now? How can any team afford to automatically look past any single one of them?

That Pat Burns already coached in Toronto once before shouldn't immediately disqualify him from anything. He was in Toronto practically a generation ago - no one from those years (other than Cliff Fletcher, whose case is special) remains to this day with the Leafs, right? Not executives, not front office staff, not players. If you want to make the case that he failed as a coach in Toronto, that's fine, but you have to at least acknowledge that the circumstances this time would be entirely different.

And he'd automatically fail this time because... because what? Because the uniforms are still blue and white?

[Clark Aitken]

Call it rear-view syndrome.

A columnist is bitter about the fact the team he covers on a daily basis is taking its time to plan the future direction of the club, leaving him short on column material. The team chooses to do its homework for once, rather than race out to hire replacements, for which the columnist would scorn them for rushing to judgment without considering all options.

Now the rumor mill generates the names of a few former employees to return to their old post, men who brought the team as close to the peak of the mountain as they've been in decades. The columnist chooses to dismiss their qualifications simply for the fact they worked here some time ago, when things were quite different, at the same time taking a shot at the fan base that populates his readership by claiming they are stuck in the past, clinging to past failures.

The columnist chooses not to offer his own suggestions to the solution, as he'd rather feel superior in the knowledge that he knows what's wrong, and nobody else knows what's right.

The readers have seen this column time and time again, in so many different words, when only two things are clearly apparent; The columnist is never going to be satisfied with the actions of the team's brass, and his columns are formulaic and unimaginative.

[Down Goes Brown]

We get it Damien. You don't like any of the possible candidates for the GM or coach jobs.

Either give us a name that you think would be a good fit, or find something else to write about. You're taking the easy way out right now.

[doug E]

firing maurice was the first good thing the leafs have done in a while even though it only came at paul's own insistence so i don't know how much the leafs can really be credited. how can you hire a guy as a GM and tell him his first job is to axe a bunch of his fellow hockey brethren? - this is not the kind of karma a connected hockey guy needs to start a new job - fletcher should have cleared the deck of coaches like he tried to clear the deck of over-priced under-achieving veterans at the deadline - i guess he was only partially successful once again - maybe rather than interim GM they should have called fletch the partial GM.

[King Leary]

Having just read your latest article about MLSE wanting someone who has won a Cup to be the next President/GM, I'm not sure what point you are making.

In fact, it seems like you weren't making a point (like usual), except to make a dig at the Leafs (how predictable) because they wouldn't have picked a guy like Paul Holmegren.

If the Leafs picked a guy like Holmgeren, you would have been all up in arms writing about how MLSE doesn't know what they are doing and how they are meddling in the hockey operations.

Even if MLSE did something right, you wouldn't acknowledge it.

[James]

Damien,

I love your blog. I check it daily. But I'm sorry, your latest entry was way off the mark. Have you ever considered the fact that someone like Burns could actually be one of the more attractive options for coach considering he has BEEN in Toronto, knows what to expect...and finally could have reflected over the past decade where he has made mistakes with his teams? Life is about lessons...and we gain from them. I don't think NHL coaches are exempt from that. I think it's a bonus that a candidate has been behind the bench before. I'm not saying it's necessary...and yeah, it could go wrong all over again. But, bottom line, the game has changed as a previous reader mentioned and people rise to opportunity to ammend their previous roles. By the way, who would be top 3 choices Damien?

[Fred Menlove]

I used to read your column on a daily basis prior to the firing of Pat Quinn. But it seemed to me you were leading a charge to get rid of him (whereas I was always a fan of Quinn) hence I stopped reading your column with his departure. Not that it matters one iota but I disagreed with the hiring of JFJ from day one. Some time in January this year,I started to read your column on an occasional basis. Based upon our continued difference of opinions on what needs to be done, I see its time to take another sabatical. Perhaps you could get Don Cherry to write one of your columns on the Leafs your readership would probably go up.

[Me]

WRONG!

Damien, why the constant hate for Fletcher?

Fletch and Burns turned around the Leafs in a remarkably short period of time (especially for that era.)

What happened in 96-97 was due to ownership.

Come on, fess up to the bias.

[Matt]

The Leafs could do much worse than Burns.

Let's also remember that the Leafs played the 4th or 5th most playoff rounds between 1998-2004. While we have nothing to show for it, that has been the best time for Leafs fans since the mid-late 70s. While I don't want to settle for losing, we should try to keep things in perspective. And I think the local media has lots a lot of perspective lately.

[Robert Moses]

Damien, don't worry about these loser turkeys who support losers and losing in Toronto.

You are definitly right on the mark about the Leafs.

[Kevin]

Joel Quenville hasn't won the big one. They should be looking for a winner like Carbenneau in Montreal. He doesn't have to be the most intelligent play designer. Leave that for the assistants. Bring in Winners. Guys that know what it takes to win without the bringing in the big fat ego.

I was watching Bobby Clarke last night and he had some suggestions for Toronto. One guy he mentioned I really like is Joe Newendyk. Classy guy, knows hockey, has won championships, played through pain, and recognizes talent. What the hey, better than JFJ who has won nothing.

I wasn't a big fan of Quinn's style of hockey. Boring. However he did win. Can he change his teams style to match the new NHL?
And it was funny during the past three years that the Leafs couldn't score in the shootout. Those are the easist goals to get. A wide open shot on a goalie. And then to be at or near the bottom in penalty killing. Maurice had to go.

[PF]

Pat Burns is the last coach I'd want back. The Leafs of his day, though havibg a measure of success, rarely shot off the rush-never mind score-and generally threw the puck off the glass on the breakout. It was boring, and so far removed from today's game. I doubt Burns has adjusted.

[Mick]

Wow,,,looks like all the people who voted for Burns wrote in Damien. People! We don't need another "Back to the Future" plan. It's been done. Still no cups. Maybe we should consider Broph again, or what about Tom Watt? Nick Beverley anyone? Hey, is Gerry McNamara available to GM again? Jeez, Damien is suggesting good qualified hockey people, new to this team, who will bring in fresh vision. C'mon,,,is not about time for that?

[Todd Buttenham]

Hi Damien:

Liked your article re: the Leafs' Dream Team. The only thing I'd change would be Doug Armstrong for GM. I really like the organization he built in Dallas, on and off the ice, before he was fired (or was that more like a bloodless coup?).

As for Nonis, we still don't know whether that hiring is more about squeezing the Ducks to release Burke. If so, the Leafs would be in limbo again. Don't need any more of that in Leafland.

Other than that, can't argue with your suggestions for president (Colin Campbell) and coach (Craig Hartsburg) - both excellent choices with lots of hockey savvy.

[Remi]

Cox,
You don't know what the heck you are talking about.I don't like the remarks you make about Pat Burns and Cliff Fletcher.You don't know much about hockey.I don't like you and the Star should get rid of you just like the Maple Leafs got rid Of Ferguson.You always say bad things about the Maple Leafs coach.Why don't you write about stupid golf which is a sissy game.I have no respect for you.I can't stand you and I will not be reading anymore hockey news from you.

[reality man]

Yeah, Damien Cox is taking a dig at Fletcher and Burns while in a previous article talking about how great Paul Holmgren is. So what has Paul Holmgren accomplished? He took a dreadful team and turned it into one that barely made the playoffs. This is an acomplishment apparently despite the fact that Cox was whining for the last three months of the season that barely making the playoffs for the Leafs would be a disaster because they still wouldn't be very good and would get a lower draft pick. On the other hand, I seem to remember that the 91/92 Leafs finished with 67 points (to Philly's 56 points last year)and during Burns first year, with Fletcher's moves, they finished with 99 points (to Philly's 95 points this year) in 92/93 i.e. a huge turnaround in the regular season with a better finish than the Flyers managed this year. Cox falls all over himself because the Flyers have gotten to the Conference Final after a bad year the year before yet that exactly is what the Leafs did in 92/93 - and they got to within an OT goal in Game 6 of the Conference Final of getting to the finals. Although it is still in progress, I doubt that Philly will get by Pittsburgh, under which circumstances Holmgren will accomplish exactly the same thing this year as Fletcher did in 92/93 i.e. taking a lousy team one year and bringing it to the Conference Finals the next. Fletcher, though, is a failure but Holmgren a genius. Moreover, Fletcher didn't have the benefit of free agent acquisitions like Daniel Briere. Please name a single trade made by Holmgren that measures up to Fletcher robbing Calgary blind to get Gilmour (one of the most lopsided trades in history)or bringing in Dave Andreychuk (who went on to back to back 50+ goal seasons with the Leafs)for a fading Grant Fuhr i.e. two potential Hall of Famers in the prime of their careers? Upshall for Forsberg? Lupul for Pitkanen? Whoopteedoo!
The 93 Leafs lost to a low-seeded LA team? Yeah, but how did LA get to the Conference Finals anyway? Answer: By beating two higher seeded teams in the previous rounds. And yes, LA was a low-seeded team but did you ever consider the fact that some unknown guy named Wayne Gretzky (LA's captain) missed the first 37 games of that season due to injury, got off to a slow start when he came back and ended up with 65 points in 45 games (projected 117 points in 82 game)despite the slow start (he got 130 points the next year). That same loser picked up 40 points in 24 playoff games that year (to show the pace that he was on at the end of the season) and led the playoffs in scoring. Do you think that having Wayne Gretzky in the lineup for 37 extra games would improve your seeding a little bit? Nah, because Wayne Gretzky (as a 33 year) was known to be a non-factor in the success of any team that he played for.

Yeah, Burns didn't win the Cup with the Leafs and when he left they were struggling. So what? May I remind you that he DID win the Stanley Cup as head coach of NJ in 2003? Is Lou Lamariello some moron that doesn't know anything about winning Cups who picked a coaching failure? Did NJ win the Cup DESPITE Pat Burns being the coach or did he play some role in that championship? Burns didn't get fired in N, by the way, - he left because he developed colon cancer. If he was an excellent coach in NJ then does the possibility of him coming back to Toronto turn him into a bad one? Scotty Bowman didn't win anything in Buffalo but that didn't prevent Detroit from hiring him.

In a previous article Cox claims that Brian Burke is a star. So what would be wrong with having Fletcher hang around for a year until Burke's contract runs out next year? We constantly hear of the lack of long-term thinking in the Leafs organization yet Cox suggests that the Leafs go with Dave Nonis as GM immediately. Why? From what I remember, Nonis took a 100+ point team and turned it into one that didn't make the playoffs. How is that superior to Fletcher - who has won a Cup as GM? Even if Nonis is somehow superior to Fletcher than how does it show long-term thinking to go with an inferior GM now just because a "star" GM isn't available for one year. Is Fletcher such an idiot that he would do considerable damage to Toronto in one year.

You know, I would rather have this team run on the basis of Cliff Fletcher's (a Cup-winning GM) input for one year rather than on the basis of the opinion of some columnist that has never played an AHL game, let alone an NHL game, and has never worked for a professional hockey team in any coaching, scouting or management capacity. It must be nice to be a columnist - you can make all kinds of moronic suggestions about running aa team but you'll never actually be held accountable by anyone for the stupid things that come out of your mouth. After all, this is the same guy (Cox)that criticized the Leafs for hiring an inexperienced GM in JFJ, raked JFJ over the coals for three years and then claimed, after JFJ was fired, that JFJ had a bright future in the NHL and that he would be snapped up quickly by another team. Hmmm, we're still waiting for JFJ to be snapped up by anybody or to even hear his name in reference to any of the GM vacancies in the NHL and that criticism of hiring an inexperienced GM flies completely in the face of your praise of the 4 GMs of the current conference finals that you point out were either unknown or inexperienced when they were hired indicating that the leafs shouldn't necessarily look for a known commodity when hiting this time around. Yes Leaf ownership, forget the experienced guys and look for a diamond in the rough because that's what Damien Cox would do - and we all know hoew many Cup rings Damien has.

[reality man]

A couple more points.

1) The fact that Burns "failed" before is irrelevant. There is only one player left on the Leafs that Burns coached the first time around (Sundin) and even he may not be around. Therefore, his potential impact on the Leafs in 2008 cannot be gauged from hos impact on the Leafs in 1996. Just because the teams are both called the Toronto Maple Leafs doesn't mean anything as the latest version has almost nothing to do with the former.

2) Both Pat Quinn and Paul Maurice were notoriously soft on the players (rarely benching anyone), neither deployed any kind of meaningful defensive system and players were routinely undisciplined. It would be interesting to research how many goals the Leafs gave up this year (and in years past under Quinn/Maurice) because of moronic penalties that had nothing to do with preventing an opposition scoring chance. On the hand, Burns is known as a disciplinarian and fanatical about defense. It wouldn't hurt young players to learn some discipline and to actually learn how to play some defense.

3) Fletcher is called a failure because the Leafs lost to a low seeded team in 1993. Please explain the praise for Bob Gainey this year, then. In 92/93 (under Fletcher) the Leafs bettered their previous year's performance by 32 points (67 points to 99) and made it to the conference finals (including an upset of the heavily favoured Detroit Red Wing in the first round) before losing in 7 games to LA (6th best record in the West). On the other hand, Bob Gainey has been praised for his work with the Habs and their "amazing turnaround" this year (i.e. missing the playoffs to winning the East). However, compared to Fletcher's work on the 92/93 Leaf team, Gainey's work is far less impressive. Yes, Montreal went from missing the playoffs to first in the Conference - but this situation is due primarily to the situation of parity in the NHL these days i.e. while the 92/93 Leafs improved by 32 points over the previous year's team, this year's Habs (104 points) improvement (14 points) represents less than half the 92/93 Leaf improvement at 14 points over last year's hab's team (90 points). A 14 point improvement is hardly "staggering" and if many "experts" were predicting that the Habs would miss the playoffs this year that is due to their own ignorance rather than any great moves by Bob Gainey. What of playoff performance? Well, the Habs struggled to beat the 8th seed in the first round and fell meekly in the second round to a low seed (5th by record but only 1 point ahead of 8th ). Moreover, the team that Montreal lost to (Philadelphia - 95 points) only made it to the second round by beating a team that had less points (Washington - 94 points and 6th by record)) than it during the regular season. On the other hand, the team that the Leafs lost to in 1993 (LA) had previously beaten teams with substantially better records than it in the first two rounds (one of which finished ahead of Toronto). So, using the same criteria is Bob Gainey a failure in Montreal?

[Garret Thomson]

Keep it coming Damien. Seriously, you're one of the only Toronto scribes who calls it like it is.

What the leafs need is a reboot. A clean slate. (Starting with some of the fans might be nice, too.) Its a shame some people see you write critical things of Leaf management and vision, and think that a multi-brazillion dollar company like MLSE really needs somebody to stick up for them.

What a culture of losers. I'd rather see them make brash, gutsy decisions, but its pretty obvious from the fan base that MLSE has every reason to hire people based on fan nostalgia than hockey sense. (Hey, why not make Wendel the GM! Leaf fans could die happy!)

[pete milner]

You cant go back. Just like a lost love "it aint the same"..This ugly monster we all love (the leafs) need an owner . A real owner .. One boss only to be held responsible and / or accoladed. Until then we all may as well stop watching and IF you can afford it " going to the games".A disillusioned fan ..............

[dafydd]

OK, Burns and Quinn both had pretty good records with the Leafs, Quinn did miss the playoffs once, by inches, and Burns took 2 teams into the final 4 -- check out the defense on that 'low-seeded' Kings team (Blake, Sydor, Zhitnik...) not to mention Robitaille, Lang, Kurri and Gretz.

Two Pats: Short in both cases, of winning the cup of course, but how many of those folks (cup-winning coaches) are available this week?

[Rob Culley]

Damien - I totally agree with the above posts - You seem to lead the charge to get rid of people (Quinn and Fletcher) - but you questioned the firing of Ferguson as a media driven firing. No, it was definitely for cause vs. Quinn and Fletcher. Quinn wasn't that answer as a GM and maybe it was time for a change. You need to move onto covering another team - your objectivity appears to be lacking. What is wrong with Burns? He won a cup since he left here and has gained an entire career worth of coaching experience since he left.

[Don]

I see all of the "back to the future" Leaf fans have responded to your blog Damien.
I for one agree with you that constantly re-hiring past Leafs that had a modicum of success seems to be what this organization always does and it has never worked. They seem incapable, as are a lot of Leaf fans of thinking outside the box.
When Fletcher was brought back most Leaf fans were delighted that a GM as creative and tough (but Fair) as Cliff, was going to clean house of the under performing and bloated contracts on this team. When he failed they all blamed it on those darn NTC's, not on Cliff's unwillingness and/or inability to get tough with them.
Is it too much to ask for creativity in the front office as well as on the ice?