Brian Burke made it clear this was what he’s going to do, and now he’s going to do it.
You may not agree with gooning up the Maple Leafs. But Burke has never hid the fact that this is a very big part of his plan, and he has a Stanley Cup ring to use as evidence that his approach works. Moreover, the NHL has created an environment in which fighting is tacitly approved, mostly because the powers that be lack the strength to take this nonsense out of the sport.
Brad May’s acquisition, really, was necessary to do something to begin the process of toughening up the Leafs, if only because Burke was having a heck of a time doing something more meaningful. May can’t play much anymore, but he sure tries hard, even at age 37, and Ron Wilson has probably had quite enough of players without enough get-up-and-go every night. Before last night’s game was two periods old May had a boarding penalty and a fight, so he seems to understand what his role is. Burke, meanwhile, wants muscle and he wants guys who can fight, and he has never hidden that as a goal with this team. Can’t say I like this approach, but the league loves fighting and Burke’s had success with those tactics.
To me, the more significant move was the decision to send Nikolai Kulemin to the minors. To often in recent years the Leafs have brought in European players and awarded them roster positions without having them earn them first. Alex Steen would be the perfect example. Kulemin, meanwhile, wasn’t producing, and you can’t demand that others serve an apprenticeship within the organization while others get a free pass.
(Note from Editor: To those who insist Alex Steen should be considered a Canadian not a European, give your head a shake. He may have been born in Winnipeg, but the point is he played four full seasons in the Swedish Elite league - where he lived - and has skated for Swedish national teams. His citizenship is not the point. The point is that some Euros come to North America and stay in the NHL largely because of the threat that if they are demoted, they will head back to Europe rather than play in the North American minors. Their status, then, is somewhat different than that of Canadian junior player who has no similar leverage.)
Burke wants internal competition for jobs, and he wants a higher competitive level from each and every player. The Leafs sure didn’t play particularly well in Montreal, but they did show more spirit and fight, and that’s a start.
On to the mailbag.
Q: Hi Damien,
Over the Christmas holiday I was chatting with a friend and we agreed that the performances from players under the age of 25 in the NHL this year is simply phenomenal. From the elite (Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Phaneuf, Price, Getzlaf, Parise, Kovalchuk etc. etc.) to the "mere" all-stars (Carter, Richards, Fleury, Hemsky, Kane, Toews, Backstrom, Vanek, Kessel, Green, Weber, Whitney, Mason, Ward etc. etc.) ... well you get the point. My buddy and I agreed that we're witnessing an explosion of young talent rarely seen in the NHL.
In fact the only analogous era we could come up with was the mid 80s when you had players like Lemieux, Yzerman, Roy, Bourque, Stevens, Francis, MacInnis, the entire Oilers lineup really, leading the way.
I think that in part the explosion in the 80s can be attributed to the WHA and expansion (more professional teams meant more paying jobs meant more gifted athletes chose hockey as a career path). But I'm not so sure that expansion in the 90s can be counted as a factor in this talent explosion. What do you think accounts for it?
I think your point about Hockey Canada shifting focus to skill development certainly helps explain the Canadian contingent. Also, the change of rules in The New NHL(tm) certainly allows for a faster, more creative (often smaller) type of player to flourish (teams aren't drafting only Lindros and Pronger clones). But beyond that I'm a stumped.
What do you think? Or is this just a demographic anomaly?Neil Therriault, Toronto
A: Well, I think there’s lots of possible reasons. For starters, young players, at least the best ones, come into the league now trained and fit to compete at a high level immediately. Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin, for example, didn’t come in to the league as young men who would have to look after their bodies better or get bigger and stronger. They were essentially ready to go.
The game has changed significantly in the past five years. I remember watching Crosby at the Memorial Cup in London, and watching opponents hook and hold and interfere with him, and wondering whether he’d ever get a chance to reach his full potential in the awful style of hockey that was dominating at the NHL and other levels of hockey at the time. Well, the NHL lockout allowed the game a chance to change, men like Colin Campbell and Mike Murphy helped engineer that change, and what we have now is a game in which all skill players, and all these young skill players, can actually compete in a league in which skill is appreciated and allowed to flourish.
This generation of young stars also came along at a time when much of the old guard – Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Francis, Messier – was departing. So there was room for these kids to acquire marquee status, particularly since many played for teams that had been down in the standings for a long, long time.
So those are some possible ideas. As far as Hockey Canada’s push for a country-wide philosophy of skill, I think you’re seeing the generation of players who benefited from that come through the junior system now, players like those who skated for the national junior team this year. Perhaps that means that in five or six years, we’ll see yet another influx of young stars. NHL teams would sure like that, for the current collective bargaining agreement makes those players a lot more affordable than veterans.
Q: Hi Damien,
If the NHL season was to end today, the Leafs would have the sixth pick overall in the draft. Since it appears that they are not quite weak enough to contend for the first or second pick, which quality junior players might still be available at the sixth spot? Is this year's draft considered a very deep one in terms of quality players?
Dave Brown, Truro, NS
A: For starters, the Leafs have 42 games to play, lots of time to plummet in the standings. Given that they are likely to dump one or two or more quality veterans over the next two months, this is a club likely to be weaker for the final 20 games of the campaign.
It sure looks like there will be talent at least through the top 10 this year. After John Tavares and Victor Hedman, players like Magnus Svensson Paajarvi, Evander Kane, Jared Cowan, Brayden Schenn, Zach Kassian, Jordan Schroeder and Matt Duchene are going to available, and there’s no shortage of scouts willing to rave about these players. Looks like a deep draft to me.
Q: Hey Damien,
After their elimination from the WJHC some commentators have blasted the Americans for sinking lots of money into their hockey programs but gaining little to no return on it. As much I like "Yankee bashing" I just don't think that's a fair analysis. USA Hockey has made great strides in producing some high draft picks many of whom are producing at the NHL level.
In my eyes, preparing players for strong NHL careers is far more important than the chest thumping that occurs after winning a medal. What do you think? Shouldn't the ultimate success of any country's hockey program be on the long-term success of the individual players who have gone through their programs?
Joel Christens, Pickering
A: I think it’s both. Developing outstanding individual players and athletes is certainly an objective, and if you do that, so do your chances of developing winning teams and capturing medals at international competitions.
Can’t say I’m an expert on USA Hockey. I do know that there are a lot terrific hockey players and programs in the U.S., but also I’ve often heard complaints about the role politics play in the assembling of national teams. What’s unusual about the U.S. is that they have big peaks – Lake Placid, the 1996 World Cup, etc. – but no consistency. The Americans might go years, for example, without winning a medal at the world juniors, and then win gold. It’s rather difficult to figure.
In terms of what you’re asking, the priority for USA Hockey should be developing players for national teams, and trying to achieve success for those national teams. I wouldn’t think developing players for the NHL should be a priority in of itself. If USA Hockey does a good job, NHL prospects will naturally be produced.
Q: Apparently, the Leafs brought Justin Pogge up to jerk him around. How can he be properly "looked at" after only one start? Your thoughts.
Steve P., Toronto
A: I think the plan all along was to give him one game, then send him down no matter what. The idea is to keep the carrot in front of him, keep him working. Leaf management was very impressed with how he played in that one game, and the plan now is to do that five or six more times this season – bring him up for one, then send him back down. But if anything, the Burke administration is more encouraged than ever that Pogge might be the real deal.
Q: Happy New Year Damien,
With Joseph having won his 450th game, which of these scenarios do you believe is most likely to occur before the end of the season:
a) Burke trades Toskala, calls up Pogge and installs him as the starter with Joseph as the backup
b) Burke quietly pushes Joseph out the door, calls up Pogge and he backs up Toskala the rest of the way or
c) Neither scenario occurs and the Leafs go the rest of the way with Toskala and Joseph. Thoughts?Ray Young, Toronto
A: I think c) is the likeliest answer; that is unless somebody decides they have to have Toskala and offers up a lot. Otherwise, the Leafs are likely to sit tight with their goaltending until the summer, at least.
Q: Hi Damien,
I wanted to get your feed back on our dilemma in Kansas City. People here still want a hockey team and the NHL has pushed us off to be forgotten! We built a brand new, state of the art arena in 2007 and have watched it stay empty without a team. The man who promised to land us our franchise, William "Boots" Del Biaggio bilked banks and private investors out of tens of millions of dollars to pay off gambling debts, bought a stake in the Nashville Predators and financed a lavish lifestyle. He's since been charged for fraud.
Meanwhile, our arena sits empty. All of our suites were sold out almost two years ago when the Penguins used our city as leverage, so we don't have the same problems cities like Nashville have. Kansas City is full of hockey fans and we have waited patiently only to be ignored by Gary Bettman. Will there ever be expansion clubs added or franchises moving in the future? There could be a local ownership group headed by former Baseball Hall of Famer and hockey fan George Brett. Do we have any hope? Does Bettman care about us anymore or did he and Mario Lemieux use us to keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh?
KC Hockey Fan, Kansas City, Missouri
A: This sounds like a similar tale of woe as that of my hometown of Hamilton, Ont., another city that once built a rink and believed the NHL would come. The NHL never promised anything to Hamilton, and to my knowledge, has never promised anything to Kansas City. Of course, K.C. once had a team, and to be honest with you, there are few in the hockey industry that believe the rebirth of the Scouts under that or any other name would be a success. But maybe none of us know the market.
Right now, there appear to be major fires burning in Phoenix, Tampa Bay and Nashville, and I would imagine that the best chance for K.C. would be to pounce if one of those teams goes belly up. If you’re waiting for Bettman to “care” about your city and deliver a team, however, you’ll be waiting a long time.
Q: Is it me or are the Ottawa Senators deliberately tanking the season to get a shot at drafting Tavares? At this point, I can't see them leapfrogging the Leafs in the standings.
Also, is there a venue in Toronto to host the Winter Classic against the Senators or Canadiens? What is the likelihood that the Leafs could host this event?
Gary Allen, Fort Frances
A: First question, no, the Sens aren’t tanking. They just stink and hope to turn it around in the second half of the season.
Second question, no, there really isn’t a venue in Toronto. Apparently, at the conclusion of baseball season the Rogers Centre retractable dome is locked for the winter. I guess BMO Field might work, but it’s very small. So unless they want to skate in the harbour, it doesn’t look likely.
Q: The powers that be have greatly reduced the fighting at the minor hockey level in recent years. Why then do we all of a sudden say that it is OK to fight as soon as they get to the OHA level and then beyond into pro?
I keep hearing that fighting allows those in the game to police themselves and reduce the amount of stickwork and cheapshots etc. I would bet that there are more cheapshots and other garbage in the line of scrimmage of a football game in one quarter than there is in an entire hockey game. Yet in football, there is no fighting and if you do you are ejected from the game.
I have long been against fighting in hockey and I sincerely hope that this tragic accident puts us on the path to its elimination from the game.
Finally, I reffed a Midget A game between Port Perry and Whitby last night. Prior to the game, a minute of silence was held in memory of Don Sanderson. Just 10 minutes into the game we had a fight where both players first instinct was to try and remove the others helmet. Sadly, these players I guess have moved on.
Larry Arbour, Whitby
A: Look, fighting is in hockey for very simple reasons. Some people like it, and some believe it sells tickets. All the other stuff is rationale and silly excuses. Sadly, I don’t believe Don Sanderson’s death will make a difference. The forces of fighting in hockey are dug in; they’ve seen it cut back, and now they’ll fight to the death to make sure it doesn’t disappear entirely.
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.**
"All the other stuff is rationale and silly excuses." With all due respect, this is far too sweeping a conclusion and generalization.
Rules are developed to protect the game and the players. Of course, how those rules are interpreted and applied are dependent on the league front office and, in particular, the officials of a game.
One of the keys in any sport is to make an early assessment of how a referee, and crew, will call the game.
Occasionally, the rules are not enforced, leading to "liberties" being taken by players, with these often directed at the more skilled players. The fourth line hockey player taking out a first line player for five or more minutes in the penalty box is nothing new in terms of tactics.
And so too -although fortunately on rare occasions- are those attempts to deliberately injure another player.
It's reasonable to suggest that these elements are common in many contact sports.
In these instances, an "enforcer" (i.e. enforcer of the rules of conduct and respect) steps into to protect the other players on the team.
Of course, fighting as a gate attraction has long been a staple in hockey. The routine of seeing two enforcers square off for their ritual bout and then sit on the bench for the rest of the game, is certainly a unique, and debatable, aspect of hockey . But, as illustrated in the above, the enforcer also can provide an important and essential role.
And when we look at European hockey and the amount of stick work etc., the issue of protecting the more skilled, and smaller, players, is not a problem unique to the NHL.
But, is this really any different from the world of business? There are statutes and regulations, as too are there are rules of conduct and ethical standards. But when these rules are broken and not applied by the governing authority, isn't that when the "enforcers" are called in, to provide protection. Only, in this instance, they're called "lawyers".
Posted by: Neil, Hamilton | January 09, 2009 at 08:18 PM
Damian,
You guys in Toronto seem to think that Burke is the saviour of the Leafs.
Yes, he won a Cup. In six games the Ducks put out the Red Wings that year. A Red Wings team whose defense had been decimated by injuries.
What else has he done?
Posted by: Jerome Kenny | January 09, 2009 at 08:18 PM
As an extension from my last comment/question, I just want to reinforce my point on Bobby Ryan by pointing out that his 3 goals came in a span of 2:21, single handedly putting his team on his back and carrying the ducks to a 3-3 tie at that point. He is a special player that the Leafs may have had the opportunity to get. But then again they also almost had Jeff Carter and a 1st rounder if Kabs could have just let go.
Posted by: Ryan | January 09, 2009 at 08:18 PM
Here's a question for you Damian. Remember near the beginning of the season when the leafs were rumoured to trade for Bobby Ryan and you said it wasn't a good trade for the leafs. Yes I know you thought it was too early to make such a deal and not so much that you didn't think Ryan had talent (although I believe that you may have used the word unproven, which was fair at the time). Would you still say the same thing today? If you ask me, which you aren't, I would have to say that it's never too early to pick up a point a game plus rookie with that kind of talent. Like I said back when the rumours where floating around, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat. How did you like that hat-trick goal last night, what a dandy!!
Posted by: Ryan | January 09, 2009 at 08:18 PM
"To often in recent years the Leafs have brought in European players and awarded them roster positions without having them earn them first. Alex Steen would be the perfect example..."
HOW IS HE THE PERFECT EXAMPLE? Alex Steen is Canadian.
Maybe you should brush up on your facts Cox, instead of repeatedly making personal vendettas known by attacking Fletcher, Quinn etc. (two of the classiest and most successful individuals to ever come through this organization.)
Posted by: Nuke La Louche | January 09, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Here we go with all the anti-fighting crap..Leaf fans will never be happy..Soon everyone will be upset that the Leafs are leading the league in penalty minutes with a great win-loss record..Its funny..You never hear the players complaining about fighting and you never hear a fan in the stands wine about a good ol' scrap..So why is it you hear all this stuff on the internet?..My bet is most of the complainers haven't played hockey..I play organized hockey all the time and I have never heard one player say they want fighting taken out of hockey..So you see, if you haven't played hockey, who are you to say anything?..Watch an exciting game of lawn bowling or maybe a poker game..Maybe join a ballet club and hang with them..I bet they don't like fighting either..
Posted by: ray brewer | January 09, 2009 at 08:19 PM
"To often in recent years the Leafs have brought in European players and awarded them roster positions without having them earn them first. Alex Steen would be the perfect example."
Initial typo aside, a correction: Alex Steen was born in Winnipeg. So, I guess not a perfect example.
Also:
"Looks like a deep draft to me"
Let's remember you said that when you inevitably bash the Leafs for their pick of one of the players off that list of yours...
Posted by: MZ | January 09, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Personally I have mixed views towards fighting. I think that the NHL likes to see itself as competitive with the other major sports leagues in North America, though obviously in many ways it isn't. The NHL, among other things, is about 80 years behind the ball with the banning of fighting. It is obvious to many that the reason that NHL teams can allow fighting is that some of players on their benches are superfluous to the actual game(motivation and deterrence aside) while NFL teams and MLB teams certainly don't employ players who are used to "cut block" or "bean batters". Everyone has a function. Herein lies the problem.
Many people, some of whom are prominent in the NHL, believe that occasionally hockey players are going to boil over and fight and often they will cite players like Iginla and Lecavalier who are elite players yet who fight every few months/years. Unless the NHL institutes a 10 minute misconduct penalty or some other "suspension" deterrent, there isn't likely to be a change in attitude.
My post had nothing new.
Posted by: darrell dos | January 09, 2009 at 08:20 PM
Dear Damien,
"Fight to the death." Was that meant to be a pun or a freudian slip?
Sad that a death is still not enough to get fighting out of the game.
Sincerely,
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph Hanke | January 09, 2009 at 08:20 PM
Why not hold a Winter Classic in T.O. in Downsview? There is lots of space and bleachers could be built.
Posted by: jimmy06 | January 09, 2009 at 08:20 PM
Two points on your comments Damien,
1. Steen should be considered a Canadian, not a European. Where did he grow up?
2. When you consider the young talent in the league now compared to the 80's or even 60's, I think it's fair to say that this league is more 'watered down' than it used to be causing the perception of great young talent.
Posted by: Scottman75 | January 10, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Alex Steen should be considered a Canadian? Being born in Winnipeg to Swedish parents and remaining in the country until your father's career ended and your parents moved back to Sweden doesn't make you a Canadian, it makes you a citizen of Sweden who happened to be born abroad.
Most importantly, what does Alex Steen consider himself to be? Everything else is moot.
Posted by: Sandy T. | January 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM
About the first question (explosion of young talent). I think Damien makes some good points, but don`t forget simple demographics: what we are witnessing is the echo (baby-boomer) generation. More players to choose from = higher quality players at the top.
Posted by: David H | January 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Let me start by saying that I do not like or believe in promoting fighting in hockey. But, Damien, I think you are truly paranoid to think that the only reason we still have fighting in hockey is because of some devious marketing genius. The reality is, hockey fights happen because it's a contact sport with a lot of passion. You can not simply wave a legislative wand and get rid of it. As for your football comparison, all I see is pushing, shoving and trash talking after every play and a pace that makes a snail look like greased lighting. No comparison, please try again to make your point.
Posted by: mark | January 12, 2009 at 03:42 PM
So, ray brewer, just because I haven't played organized hockey, I'm not allowed to comment? Well then, by the same standards, you aren't me, and don't have my particular set of experiences, so you're not allowed to comment on anything I say. Nyah-nyah! Geez, by your standards, there'd never be any change, status quo would continue until the extinction of mankind. If you haven't dragged a cavewoman home by her hair, you can't comment on sexual assault?
Posted by: Tabber | January 13, 2009 at 04:03 PM
"the NHL has created an environment in which fighting is tacitly approved, mostly because the powers that be lack the strength to take this nonsense out of the sport."
You make this sound like something that just happened recently. The truth is that fighting has been part of hockey since it began. Some of the best known players of all time are known for their fighting, Eddie Shore, Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe and Mark Messier among them. Let's not rewrite history in order to argue your cause.
Posted by: JimA | January 21, 2009 at 04:47 AM