What To Do

This, my friends, is where my business gets tricky, and I wanted to share it with you so you might provide me - and us - with some valuable insight into what you want from this blog and our newspaper.

Sometimes, another media outlet publishes or broadcasts a report that is clearly off-base and speculative at best, but is sensational. It causes lots of conversation and water cooler talk.

Is it our job to follow up on that story? To dispute it? To prove it right or wrong? To ignore it?

That's what the issue was for me today when the Globe and Mail published a patently bogus story about NHL governors considering a second NHL team for Toronto.

For starters, there was no attribution to any of the main parts of the story. I get that, and sometimes we at The Star do the same thing under certain circumstances to protect sources.

But you should know an NHL governor is not necessarily an owner. It could be a GM, a team president or some other executive you've never heard of. Until he was fired last January, John Ferguson was an alternate governor with the Maple Leafs.

So an NHL "governor" could be a somebody or a nobody. That's why this story with anonymous sources gets tricky.

Other parts were just hilarious. First there's the suggestion that Jim Balsillie, the same fellow NHL authorities clearly don't want part of their league, would somehow be "rewarded" with a franchise.

Why would the NHL do that?

Second, that such a franchise could cost $700 million to settle with the Leafs. In these economic conditions, and with the dollar going down, would it be reasonable for an NHL owner in Toronto to start $700 million in the red? I know Balsillie's a billionaire, but he's a billionaire because he makes profitable business investments.

The story made no sense. I said we should ignore it, and that writing about it simply gives credence to a story with no real facts.

My editor disagreed, and we agreed I would blog on the topic. Editors always win.

So what do you think? Should we have ignored it or discussed it?

Anyways, here are some thoughts on a second team in Toronto.

People outside Toronto have long loved the idea because they perceive this to be a fertile market underserved by the NHL. Some inside Toronto love the idea because the Leafs have played people in town for suckers for so long, an alternative product is attractive.

People in general believe a second NHL team in Toronto would be enormously successful. That might even be true.

But this isn't a right or wrong, fair or unfair story.

It's a business story, and here are the facts.

First, monopolies don't voluntarily break themselves up. The Leafs have a monopoly in this incredible hockey market and they have no intention of sharing it or allowing any competition in the market. That's why, don't forget, they wouldn't sell Maple Leaf Gardens to Eugene Melnyk.

Second, a second NHL team in Toronto is of no help whatsoever to the 24 teams based in the U.S. other than it might create another team to contribute to the revenue sharing pool rather than take from that pool.

Third, there is no incentive  for the league to carve up its best market into smaller pieces. It might satisfy those who believe the Leafs shouldn't have a monopoly, but a second team in Toronto really does nothing to improve the NHL's business in a substantial way.

Fourth, there is no guarantee a second team would work. There are three teams in the New York area, but only the Rangers are significantly successful as a commercial venture. The Lakers and Clippers share a fertile basketball market in Los Angeles, but only the Lakers are successful.

Then again, the Mets and Yankees co-exist rather well in New York. So the point is, there's no guarantee a second team in Toronto would do well, particularly if it was a poorly-run as the Maple Leafs in terms of on-ice competitiveness.

Fifth, this is an old story that's been kicking around forever. Kudos to the Globe for getting a headline, but not only is there nothing to this story, there's nothing new here.

Sixth, if a second team in Toronto makes sense, wouldn't a second team in Montreal also work? In Philadelphia? In Detroit? Chopping up your best markets doesn't help the markets that don't work so well.

Look, if Jeremy Jacobs or Ed Snider or Larry Tanenbaum starts aggressively pushing the concept of a second team in Toronto, then it will be time to start seriously considering the notion.

Right now, I think the NHL would expand to Europe long before it considers another GTA club.

And, unlike Melnyk, I think the Euro wing of the NHL is a decade or more away.

Bottom line: The NHL isn't putting a second team in Toronto, mostly because the Leafs would never go for it but also because it makes little or no financial sense for the league.

So that's my take. For another view, be sure to check out Dave Perkins' column in tomorrow's Star.

Clarification Please

Perhaps it's all a misunderstanding.

But it sure sounded like Don Cherry was advocating stick-swinging as a means of exacting revenge on the hockey rink during his Coach's Corner segment on Saturday night's edition of Hockey Night in Canada.

And it sure sounded like he was directing that suggestion at children.

But maybe it's all an misunderstanding. You be the judge.

The topic was Ryan Hollweg, and his habit of bodychecking opponents from behind into the boards, a habit that has seen him twice suspended already this fall.

"I don't understand this guy," said Cherry.

So good so far.

"I have a solution, and kids. . .I have a solution to stop (Hollweg). . .would you like to see a solution to stop him?" asked Cherry rhetorically.

Then Cherry rolled video of an incident last year in which super-goon Chris Simon, after being hit from behind by Hollweg, got to his feet and took his stick to Hollweg's neck and head area in one of the ugliest stick-swinging incidents in recent years.

"Now here, he hits Chris Simon from behind. Chris has a solution," said Cherry as the video showed the ugly slash. "Funny how. . .it's all in perspective now. Nobody said anything about running him from behind. . .and, uh. . .if this happened a few more times maybe (Hollweg) wouldn't do it."

Then, perhaps realizing he'd gone to far with his advice-to-kids segment, Cherry tried to suggest he was just kidding.

"I'm just being smart," he said.

But when co-host Ron MacLean pursued the topic, Cherry made it clear he wasn't kidding at all.

"(Simon) got 30 games and Ryan's hitting guys from all over the place and he gets four (games)," complained Cherry, adding that Simon is his "buddy."

For years, of course, Cherry has extolled the virtues of fist-fighting on skates as a means of settling disagreements, always insisting that was the manly way to deal with such problems, and that fights were always preferable to stickwork.

Now, at least according to his comments Saturday, he believes stick-swinging is a justifiable response in certain circumstances, and that kids in minor hockey should understand that it may be advisable in specific situations to use their stick on an opponent.

But you be the judge. Go to cbc.ca and watch Coach's Corner.

Maybe this is all a big misunderstanding on my part. Understand, even though I disagree with most everything Cherry advocates, I like the guy. I've even written a column suggesting that it's a farce he's not in the broadcasting wing of the Hockey Hall of Fame.

But if he really believes it's sometimes okay to swing your stick at an opponent's head, I don't think I'll write that column again.

O-Fer Out Of The Gate

There are three winless teams in the NHL this morning - Tampa Bay, Philadelphia and Anaheim.

But only one team that hasn't even been able to muster a single point.

That would be your Ducks, the team many Toronto hockey fans imagine will eventually supply the chief executive who will turn their Leafs into champions.

Brian Burke, it's widely believed, remains the apple of MLSE's eye, even with the Ducks out to a lousy 0-4 start. Eventually, it's believed, MLSE will command that the "search" for a new general manager commence anew, and all signs still point to Burke.

But what if the Ducks continue to stink? Theoretically, it could change the scenario in two different ways.

First, the Ducks may decide that part of their problem is having a GM in charge who wants out. So far, Burke has declined to sign the contract extension on his desk, and doesn't want to negotiate. This week he was back out east visiting his kids and dealing with other matters, and it's in the eastern part of the continent that he apparently wants to be.

So if the season really goes south, maybe team president Michael Schulman says goodbye to Burke early. Say, by Christmas. With Dave Nonis, Bob Murray and Dave McNab, the Ducks have lots of management depth. Moreover, critics have already suggested that the Ducks' risky salary cap positioning has been costly in the past two years, so there's a hook on which to hang Burke if the Ducks choose.

It won't be Ducks owner Henry Samueli making that decision, by the way. He's now facing a sentencing hearing in August, 2009, and will almost certainly remain under indefinite suspension by the NHL until then, or longer. So that puts a little more pressure on Schulman to manage the hockey club.

The other way in which Anaheim's struggles could impact the Burke-to-Toronto scenario is if the proverbial bloom goes off the Burke rose. In other words, if the Ducks aren't very good, might that not persuade some that Burke isn't in fact the hockey magician some might say he is?

It shouldn't. His record is solid over the years, and that's the record that should decide his suitability.

But MLSE is a finicky corporation with few settled principles when it comes to running a hockey operation. In 2003, for example, John Ferguson was the bright young boy. By 2008, chairman Larry Tanenbaum was saying he wouldn't hire a rookie to run the club, even an accomplished person like Steve Yzerman.

So if public sentiment turns against Burke with Hollweg-type furor, you can bet MLSE will be influenced. Those suits always have their finger to the wind.

In the end, of course, it'll turn out to be what Richard Peddie wants it to be. Somehow, that guy always gets his way, even though the hockey team never gets any better with him as president.

Thursday Mail Bag

In his fifth pro season, 25-year-old winger Ryan Hollweg is finding his “style” of hockey a great deal more under the microscope with the Leafs than it ever was while skating for the Hartford Wolf Pack or New York Rangers.

Given that this is the same Toronto franchise that honoured Tie Domi when he played his 1,000th NHL game, Hollweg might be a little surprised at the manner in which his efforts at overt aggression are being dissed by the locals. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those who responded to this blog this week on the Hollweg incident against the St. Louis Blues on Monday condemned the truculent winger for his on-ice decisions.

Surely, this isn’t the notoriety Hollweg was seeking in his first season with the Leafs. Whether he’ll be able to redeem himself as the season rolls along given the determination of Cliff Fletcher et al to keep him on the roster will be intriguing to watch.

That the Leafs now feature players like Hollweg, of course, is a commentary on the current plight of the franchise. Leaf fans, watching another fabulous ceremony from Montreal last night celebrating the glories of hockey's greatest franchise, certainly have cause to wonder on a daily basis, "Why not us?"

Now on to this week’s mailbag:

Q: Hey Damien,
Why was Cam Neely a no brainer for the Hockey Hall of Fame and no one talks about the another premier power forward of the same time, Wendel Clark? Clark was not too far off for points per game Neely(.95 points/game, .54 goals/game,1.79 pm/game)vs Clark (.71 points/game, .41 goals/game, 2.13 pm/game). Clark was  in a much tougher hockey news/fan market, had terrible ownership, didn’t have Ray Bourque, and when healthy had the most impact of any player night in and night out.  Clark could skate, score, hit and fight and one year was able to score 46 goals in 64 games. In their prime I believe Clark would have been a very close second to Neely as the desirable leader of any NHL team.
Glen McMinn, Halifax

A: It’s an interesting argument, well, interesting as long as you look beyond the stats. In the points-per-game category, Neely’s figure is actually more than 30 per cent better than Clark’s, so I wouldn’t call that “not too far off.” Neely had 395 career goals to Clark’s 330, and Clark played 67 more games. Neely had 20 more playoff goals. Neely had six 30-plus goal seasons and three 50-goal seasons. Clark had four seasons of 30 goals or more, and no 50 goal campaigns. So statistically, Neely was way ahead.

Both were physical power forwards. Both could scrap, both were team leaders. Neely’s teams, in general, were much better. Both suffered through injury problems, and might have been even more productive as NHLers had they not been hurt so often. In the end, the stats demonstrate Neely was the better player by a fair bit; true Leaf fans might feel differently, and that’s what being a fan is all about!

Q:Hi Damien,
Realistically, what do you think is Luke Schenn's ceiling as a player? Adam Foote? Does he have the ability to develop become an offensive threat?
Thanks,
Jeff W, Ottawa

A: I haven’t seen enough of Schenn to do anything but guess, and that guess would be that if Schenn could become for the Leafs what Mike Komisarek has become for the Montreal Canadiens, the Leafs would be pleased indeed. Foote, I think, was an exceptional warrior who, over time, developed an ability to contribute at the offensive end. If Schenn were to become Foote, the Leafs would be blessed indeed, particularly since Foote has proven to be such a durable player over the course of his career. Whether he’ll turn out to be a player that was worth trading up to draft ahead of some other gifted players, well, only time will sort out that discussion.

At this point, however, everything is projection with Schenn. He might be Foote, he might be Luke Richardson, he might be Aki Berg. All kinds of variables, from injuries to the team’s future to contracts, will have an impact on his future.

Q: Hey, Damien. A question about scouting.  It seems it's always Detroit that gets the kudos for their drafting record, but is this really fair?  Yes, Detroit has drafted well.  Very very well.  But is that good scouting, or a lot of luck?  If Detroit really knew Datsyuk (171st) and Zetterberg (210th) and Holmstrom (257th) were really going to be that good, would they have waited so long to take them?  Or would they have grabbed them earlier?  And Lidstrom (53rd) and Franzen (97th) were certainly not taken early either.  To me, if Detroit really had such high hopes for these players, they would not have waited so long to take them and risk someone else grabbing them.  To criticize the Leafs, as many do, for poor drafting...well, that case can be made for many teams.  I really think it's more a combination of rushing prospects along and the huge spotlight that is Toronto.  While Detroit is a good hockey town, I get the feeling that the players themselves can fade into the background pretty easily there.
Ron Gillespie, Listowel

A: I think it is fair that the Wings get loads of compliments for their scouting, although it’s also funny that for a number of years they really struggled to draft successfully in the first round, taking Anders Eriksson, Yan Golubovsky, Maxim Kuznetsov and Jesse Wallin in successive years from 1993-96. Your point that if they’d known how good Datsyuk, Zetterberg and others were that they would have taken them earlier is well made. But the point is that they DID take them when other clubs didn’t. It’s not a fluke when you do it as consistently as Detroit has done, and doing so well in the later rounds has allowed them to get by without being terribly effective in the first round. Finally, what the Wings also do is take these draftees and patiently develop them – other clubs might not have been so patient, and thus wouldn’t have reaped the benefits Detroit has.

Q: Mr. Cox,
It seems that everyone wants to compare the Leafs to the Red Wings.  Although it is natural to want to emulate the best organization in the league, I don’t think that it is feasible to expect MLSE to be able to achieve the type of stable ownership and management structure that they have had in Detroit over the years.  I think it's better to compare the Leafs rebuilding effort to the rebuilding that has taken place in Philadelphia over the past year and a half. 

I see the Leafs and the Flyers as similar situations.  Both Clarke and Quinn took a gamble coming out of the lockout that the league would not carry through on their commitment to the new standard of rule enforcement and stuck with slow, less-skilled players, expecting the clutching and grabbing to come back quickly.  Although it is obvious that things have moderated over the past two seasons in the calling of games, it was losing that gamble that put the Flyers and Leafs in the situation that they were both in two years ago.

The Flyers brought in an aggressive GM who made some decent trades (for roster players, not just draft picks) and signed one big free agent prize, but probably more importantly, some fairly young, mid-range free agents that helped their team right away.  The Flyers are now a relatively young, competitive team that looks like a Stanley Cup contender for years to come.  Why not try the Flyers formula?
Stephen S., Welland

A: Well, as I argued at the time, the opportunity for the Leafs to emulate the Flyers really was last winter, but they were unwilling or unable to use the veteran assets they had to make futures deals like the one Philly swung to land Braydon Coburn. Also, it’s important to remember that while the Flyers sank badly two seasons ago, the year before they were a strong regular season club and had a base of Mike Richards, Jeff Carter and others to build upon.

I think the Detroit comparison is more of a long-term proposition, to make a concerted effort to patiently draft and develop players to make a club successful for years, not just a blip here and there. I’m not sure why you say it’s not “feasible” for the Leafs to achieve the same consistency in ownership and management that Detroit has; that’s the model worth pursuing, and there’s no reason the Leafs can’t pursue it. They just choose not to, preferring instead to change direction every three or four years.

Q: Damien, thanks for giving us your thoughts in your daily blog and your weekly mail bag. Can you help me here? Everyone keeps talking about the statements that Tannenbaum made about the Leafs preferring to put off a championship and suffer through five years of losing, if it meant being competitive in the long term.  Aren't the Leafs currently in the five year (or longer) cycle and no Cup to show for it?
L.G., Whitby

A: That one made me chuckle, if only because L.G. is so right, that it's difficult to figure what part of the cycle the Leafs are in at the best of times. I guess they would tell you that this is Year One of a new rebuilding effort. Unfortunately, they pretty much wasted the first three post-lockout seasons trying to chase the eighth and final Eastern Conference playoff berth every year rather than intelligently build a team truly able to pursue a championship. But your point is well made, and I think there isn’t a Leaf fan, looking back at the past 41 years of history, who wouldn’t have found the losing a lot easier to take had there been one or two championships.

Q: Hi Damien,
Question #1:  Why are you so hard on the Teachers Pension Fund all the time?  What would you have them do exactly?  Go out and scout some junior players?  Draw some Xs and Os on a whiteboard?  Lace up their skates and do some backchecking?

Of course I'm kidding, but it seems to me their only role is to control the purse strings and the Leafs always had plenty of money to spend before the salary cap.  In the current salary cap era, we should have even less to complain about.

Question #2:  How bad does it look to have the league's richest franchise well under the salary cap? It's been mentioned before that Sundin's lack of a decision is the best thing that could happen for the Leafs.  By keeping $7M in cap space open for his possible triumphant return, the rebuilding Leafs have a justification for saving cash by remaining well under the cap.

Otherwise, if Mats had retired or played elsewhere and the deep-pocketed Leafs didn't spend to near the cap, I think the optics would be terrible.  How many franchises would love to be at the cap but can't do it?

(Disclaimer:  I am married to a teacher and hope to retire comfortably off her pension.  So I encourage all you lemmings, uh... Leaf fans to continue to purchase overpriced tickets, beverages, jerseys and condos.)
Eric E, Toronto

A: Well, the answer to the first question is that I believe quality ownership does more than just sign the cheques. It puts the right people in the right management structure and lets them do their jobs, something MLSE, regardless of its makeup, has just been chronically unable to do. They’ve been the corporate entity that owns the Leafs for 10 years, and they’re already on their fourth general manager. When John Ferguson was fired, MLSE sought to hire a new full-time GM and president; after a search, they found neither, and settled for turning interim GM Cliff Fletcher into a full-time GM again after firing him a decade earlier. All that tells you much of what you need to know about MLSE, and the teachers pension fund have been the majority owners since 2003. So they’re the ones ultimately responsible.

Re the second question, it is interesting that the amount the Leafs are under the cap will nicely help pay for the cost of buying out Darcy Tucker and Andrew Raycroft, plus the cost of paying $2 million to Bryan McCabe before trading him to Florida. I guess the fair answer is that they don’t have a roster worth paying more than $48 million to, and it's reasonable to assume that when the Leafs can put a better team on the ice, they’ll probably be a cap team again.

Q: It has been reported that Leafs’ coach Ron Wilson expects the team to block more shots this year.  Here’s my question: is shot blocking all it’s cracked up to be?  Yes, reducing the number of shots on net should reduce the goals-against.  But do you think the cost, i.e., players lost to bone bruises, hairline fractures, and nagging foot injuries, deserves more attention?
Brian Aukema, Prince George, B.C.

A: Interesting point. I guess the answer would be that often foot injuries from shots have little to do with actual shot-blocking, but are just accidents that are part of the game. You don’t actually have to intend to block a shot to get hit by a puck in a bad spot; in fact, one of the most frequent foot injuries seems to be when a forward is in the attacking zone and is hit by one of his own team’s shots. To me, shot blocking and the rise to the level it's currently at has hurt the game, stifling offence to a significant degree and allowing teams to pack their defensive zones down low and producing hockey that isn’t all that interesting. That said, shot-blocking can also be inspirational for teams, and in the NHL today, it's an indispensable tool for top-flight defensive teams.

Q: Damien,
If, by some miracle, the Leafs are playing well come the half way mark of the season, and by playing well I mean near or slightly over the .500 mark, and Sundin decides he wishes to play in Toronto again, do you think that it would still be a good idea to have him back or take a pass for the sake of developing a new team chemistry and a new direction?
Jamie Hubbert, Ottawa

A: Jamie, I guess my answer is the same as it’s always been, and that is whether Sundin returns or doesn’t return, it’s not going to make a significant difference. As Ron Wilson has said repeatedly, the team missed the playoffs three straight years with Sundin, so I’m not sure why he’d made such a significant difference now.

I hope Sundin, if he returns, goes someplace else where his terrific skills can be put to good use. It’s time for the Leafs to turn a new page, and for No. 13 as well. His number will still be raised to the rafters of the ACC one day, and he’ll deserve it.

Q: Damian,
Since the leafs have considerable cap space and actual money available to spend, doesn't it make sense to try to relieve some teams of bad contracts in return for some draft picks or prospects?  I believe the New Jersey Devils and San Jose Sharks did something quite similar a year or two ago.  Do any players on teams that are more strapped for cash and/or cap space than the leafs jump out at you as potential trading partners?
Neil Poutanen, Guelph

A: The Leafs had to work so hard to get rid of Bryan McCabe’s contract, I can’t imagine they’d be particularly willing to take on another team’s problem. That said, I understand your point, and certainly the Leafs were interested in taking on Mathieu Schneider’s contract from Anaheim if it meant they could get their hands on prospect Bobby Ryan. Right now, teams are sorting out what they have, but the New York Rangers are one club that has a number of forwards – Petr Prucha, Patrick Rissmiller, Nigel Dawes, Dan Fritsche – that are currently having a hard time getting into the lineup, and the Rangers would also like to free up some room to sign Brendan Shanahan. So they might be one of those types of teams that could be a potential trading partner in the scenario you describe.

Q: News flash: The Leafs will be miserable this season. Fine. Can you please explain how a team that some (ie, Sports Illustrated) project to be 30th in the league, a team spectacularly devoid of major talent, costs this much? I would have thought such a dearth of talent would bring a team closer to the salary cap floor.
Frank Paonessa,  Richmond Hill

A: Well, at $48 million the Leafs are about halfway between the floor and the cap. I guess the answer to your question is that when you are paying big money to non-core talent your payroll is going to feel the impact. Jason Blake ($4.5 million), Niklas Hagman ($3 million), Pavel Kubina ($5 million), Jeff Finger ($3.5 million) and Mike Van Ryn ($3.35 million) together represent more than 40 per cent of Toronto’s payroll, and none are core players on any good team in the league. Overpaying for good to average players has been an ongoing issue for the Leafs since the NHL adopting a salary cap.

 

Q: Hi Damien, I see your reasoning with why the Leafs should send Luke Schenn back to junior. However, I also see the reasoning to keep him here. I grew up with the idea that the only way to get better is to play and practice with people that are better than you. How much can you learn when your competition isn't much of a challenge anymore? In a season when the expectations for the Leafs are low, why not let Luke Schenn stay in the NHL and hone his craft against the best the world has to offer?
Varun Chakravorty,  Brampton

A: Who says the Western Hockey League isn’t much of a challenge for Schenn any more? Suddenly he's too good? He was a second-team all-star last year, not the league’s best defenceman, and the obvious challenge now would be to become a dominant force in the WHL, the leader of the Kelowna Rockets and a big-time player at this year’s world junior hockey championships in Ottawa. I disagree that the only way to get better is to play and practise with better players. That’s one way, but it's also a way that young players can quickly lose their confidence and puts limits on their game. If Schenn, for example, goes back to Kelowna, he’ll play nightly on that team’s power play. In Toronto, he’s going to play the role of a stay-at-home defenceman and rarely see time on the power play. To me, it’s not a question about whether Schenn CAN play in the league, it’s a question of whether he SHOULD play in the NHL, and whether that’s the best way to develop his skills to the highest possible level.

Every Thursday, Damien Cox answers your questions in The Spin, only at thestar.com.

Click here to submit a question.

**Note: please follow the link above to send a question to Damien. Questions posted in the comments section may not make it to the mailbag. Thanks.**

Pointless and Dangerous

So this is the value you get for a fifth round pick and $525,000 US in salary.

Ryan Hollweg. A serial hitter-from-behind.

There's no point blasting Cliff Fletcher now for picking up this player in the summer, for it was clear Fletcher was looking at his roster and figured any player with a bit of muscle would help the Leafs.

Apparently not. Hollweg is about to receive his second suspension in a matter of weeks, a three-gamer this time for checking from behind, his favourite hockey play.

Let's be clear. This oaf on skates doesn't score goals, or set up plays, or generate a forecheck or even protect his teammates. Ever since he's been in the league, he has been known as a player who does one of three things every time he's on the ice:

1) Takes about 25 strides and charges an opponent.
2) Leaves his feet to hit an opponent.
3) Hits opponents from behind.

He's a dangerous, dangerous hockey player, and for all the wrong reasons. Everybody knew it before he got here after his years of playing for the Rangers. You might remember him as the player who helped Chris Simon snap last season. Well, snap the first time.

The smartest thing the Leafs could do now with Hollweg is waive him without sending him to the Marlies where he'd then endanger the hockey careers of unsuspecting AHLers. The only Leaf who could possibly be pleased with Hollweg's cheap hit is Matt Stajan, for the incident deflected potential questions on why it was Stajan, brutal in the first two games, who was sent to the press box to make room for No. 44.

The NHL, meanwhile, should tack on 40 games to the three games Hollweg is supposed to get. He clearly doesn't get the message, and he has consistently demonstrated utter disdain for the health of other hockey players.

He just doesn't care.

Actually, what would be most useful would be if the Leafs were to suspend Hollweg themselves after his idiotic and pointless hit on St. Louis defenceman Alex Pietrangelo on Monday that, to a significant degree, cost the Leafs the hockey game in a 5-4 defeat.

You know, like the Argos did with Robert Baker a few years back. It would be a way of Cliff Fletcher, Ron Wilson and Co. making it clear they don't condone the way this guy plays.

That, folks, would show class as an organization.

Look, this is not a hockey club that has an awful lot to be proud about from recent decades.

But that said, Hollweg doesn't deserve to wear this team's jersey. That Fletcher would call the hit "marginal" is just a GM trying to defend a bad trade, and having Wilson say the hit was "debatable" goes contrary to everything he's said so far about making his players accountable, about a no-nonsense approach and tough love to make these players learn to play the right way. The comments of both the GM and the coach make you think they like have a unguided missile around.

The Leafs might need toughness - we can debate that another day - but they don't need this guy. He adds nothing.

Dump him. Now.

A Long Night at the Office

When the highlight of the night for the home team is the play of the backup goalie in a one-sided, 6-1 loss, it hasn't been a good night.

Curtis Joseph, however, did give the local fans something to cheer about in the third period tonight with some dandy stops, including one with less than seven minutes left in the game on an Alexei Kovalev breakaway that had the ACC faithful chanting "Cujo, Cujo."

'Course, that chant wasn't nearly as loud as the trademark "Ole, Ole" chorus that erupted from the Montreal fans in attendance with four minutes to play of a scoreless third.

Joseph ended up with 11 saves and no goals allowed. Not bad for an old guy, and probably enough to get some nuts calling for him to play instead of Toskala Monday night.

The Habs look like they have a very good chance to be an excellent team this season, and that lethal power play on its own will again win games for the Montrealers. Alex Tanguay looks to be a seamless fit, and while Robert Lang is no Mats Sundin, he looked pretty good last night.

Tune in Monday night for the battle of the 18-year-old defenceman, the Leafs' Luke Schenn versus Alex Pietrangelo of the St. Louis Blues.

An Ugly Second

Let's just say the euphoria has, um, evaporated.

For the Leafs tonight against the Habs, down 6-1 after two periods, its now just about saving some face. And keeping the score in single digits.

After going 18-17-6 at home last year, the Leafs are going to have to do something about the fact they are a weak home team right now. Looking at their respective lineups, you'd expect the Habs to be a much better team than Toronto, and they are. But just like last year, the Leafs seem to get no jump out of playing at the ACC, but rather seem to panic when things go lousy, turning defeat into humiliation.

Montreal had the best power play in the league last season and the Leafs' penalty killing ranked 29th out 30 teams, and it looks so far like not much has changed. The Canadiens scored three goals at extra-strength, two with Matt Stajan serving a double minor for high-sticking and one with Luke Schenn off for flipping the puck over the glass. Game 2 is definitely proving to be more challenging than Game 1 for the kid.

Stajan just looks lost, as does Alex Steen, and it was the same for both in Detroit on Thursday. If the Leafs were hoping the two would be leaders this season, they've got to be sadly disappointed.

The line switching began late in the second. Nikolai Kulemin was moved beside Mikhail Grabovski and Niklas Hagman, replacing Jiri Tlusty. Tlusty was shifted to a line with John Mitchell and Jason Blake, while Steen jumped on to a line with Nik Antropov and Alexei Ponikarovsky.

It's an interesting call now for Ron Wilson - let Curtis Joseph relieve Toskala for the third, or let Toskala finish up. I'd give Joseph a period.

Jaroslav Halak, meanwhile, has been very strong for the Habs. This guy's a good goalie, and he may give Carey Price a challenge for playing time before this season is over.

First Period

In four periods this season, the Leafs have allowed only four goals. Not bad. But three of 'em - two by Detroit's Tomas Holmstrom, and one tonight in the first period by Montreal's Alexei Kovalev - have been scored by players standing on the edge of Vesa Toskala's crease, with Leaf defenders unable to move them or tie them up.

Tonight it was newcomer Jonas Frogren victimized by Kovalev, who essentially pushed Frogren into a hockey version of the low post, took a pass from Tomas Plekanec, and then spun and beat Toskala.

That was the second Montreal goal. On the first one by Roman Hamrlik, two Leafs stumbled on the supposedly new and improved ACC ice. Matt Stajan fell in the Montreal zone and the Leafs never did get any weak side defence on a 3-on-2 Montreal break. Toskala, meanwhile, stumbled coming across his crease, opening up the five-hole wide for Hamrlik.

Rookie Luke Schenn twice misplayed the puck, once deep in his own end. The youngster might be having the jitters in the home opener.

Jason Blake should've scored the first goal of the game three minutes in off a nice play by Nik Antropov, but simply fired the puck into Montreal goalie Jaroslav Halak as he laid on the ice and didn't get it up.

Montreal, a little growly after losing to Buffalo Friday night, outhit the Leafs in the first, with young blueliner Duncan Ryan O'Byrne particularly physical.

See you after two periods.

Opening at Home

Well, call me an old fogey.

But when they won't let the 48th Highlanders pipe their way off the ice before the Leaf home opener in order to play some flashy video extolling the virtues of the new "Spirit is Everything" corporate propaganda, it's just another indication that these MLSE suits don't understand history and never will.

Just sad.

Guessing they've got this fancy new videoboard and they want to use it. You know how kids are with toys.

Otherwise, there was mild euphoria in the air outside the ACC, and inside, well, anytime the Habs are in town, the atmosphere is good. They may have hustled off the 48th Highlanders after just two songs, but at least they brought in a bunch of Olympic athletes - every single one a medallist in Beijing - to participate in the opening ceremonies tonight.

The Habs lost in Buffalo last night, so bet on them being sharp right off the opening faceoff. The Leafs are going with the same lineup, which leaves Anton Stralman (healthy scratch), Ian White (healthy scratch), Ryan Hollweg (suspended) and Jeff Finger (injured) all in civvies.

The notion of a letdown in the second game of the season seems ridiculous, but we'll see tonight if coach Ron Wilson has yet been successful in rinsing the easily satisfied attitude out of this hockey club.

Talk to you after the first period.

A New Perspective

DETROIT--If there were horns honking on Yonge Street last night, they couldn't be heard or felt in Motown.

Time to give Leaf fans some credit. While it's easy to pick on them for exulting too wildly over a three-game winning streak and continuing to live and die with a franchise that has disappointed for 41 years, beating the Red Wings 3-2 on opening night Thursday didn't produce a wave of "I-told-you-so" emails and "We're gonna win the Cup" voice mails.

It had to be a nice night to be a Leaf fan, to be sure, and the result was a far cry from the beating most expected the visitors to take at the hands of the champs.

But the general post-game response seemed measured. Leaf fans know what this season is probably going to feel like, and after weeks of being told by not only the media but Leaf management that the season is likely to be miserable, they seemed to accept beating the Wings as simply a good sign and a solid achievement.

So enjoy it Leaf fans. You're allowed.

Watching Nikolai Kulemin, Jonas Frogren, Mike Van Ryn, Jamal Mayers, Niklas Hagman, John Mitchell, Mikhail Grabovski and Luke Schenn take their first strides in blue-shouldered, white jerseys that are so much more attractive than the dreadful t-shirts they usually wear on the road had to be a nice change of pace for those who like this hockey club.

It had to be better than watching Darcy Tucker whiff on yet another goalmouth feed.

There's obvious holes in the lineup that aren't going to go away. But rather than an emphasis on size and big players, the Leafs seem finally to have grasped the lessons of the post-lockout world and seem determined to ice a club that can actually skate.

Everybody looked good Thursday night, and there aren't going to be many nights like that. But Hagman, to name one player, is obviously a very smart veteran, and Van Ryn broke up a couple of dangerous looking Detroit rushes, including a three-on-one break in the second period.

Jiri Tlusty, almost forgotten as a talking point among all the new faces, was probably the most dangerous Leaf forward in the first two periods. Grabovski, meanwhile, ended up with more ice time (17:07) than Nik Antropov (15:54), which means the job of No. 1 centre really is up for grabs with this club.

In general, there seems to be a new openness about this team, a departure from the uptight JFJ atmosphere. Low expectations and an absence of big-name, big-salaried veterans have altered the spirit, and head coach Ron Wilson's determination to make his players share the load and be accountable is noticeable.

So enjoy last night, Leaf fans, and if you want, feel like there's a tiny light at the end of this tunnel.

No ifs, ands or buts. No qualifying phrases or suggestions that it won't last.

Just enjoy.