Let's Just Cool Things Down for a Minute. . .

Man, did a few people get riled up yesterday. All over the wording of a trade. Yikes. But that's the great passion there is for the sport of hockey in this town and in this country. People can care an awful lot about the smallest details.

So we'll leave the Luke Schenn trade debate for a moment. Never thought it would get that heated, and my goodness, some people out there get their feelings hurt rather easily. Hey, we all give and receive, and as long as the shots are within the confines of relatively polite discussion, I can take it and give it out, and so must those who decide to participate in this blog.

Actually, the past couple of weeks have been really encouraging in terms of the quality of the discussion. I know there are those out there who get all worked up when their comments don' t get posted, but folks, nobody out there has a right to be heard. It's my blog, and while some accuse me of posting only those comments I agree with, a quick look at the past months will illustrate quite vividly that isn't true. What I'm looking for is comments that add to the discussion or advance the discussion. If your comment doesn't get the job done, don't expect to see it.

Now, just for a quite diversion from the sport of hockey. I received this question this week, and rather than have it buried in a hockey mail bag, I thought we'd do a quick one off.

Here goes:

Q: The past few years I have found myself watching and enjoying tennis after mostly ignoring the sport for over a decade. The Federer/Nadal matches have created some buzz but do you think there are some players on the so called bubble that could consistently reach the finals in the majors or are we stuck (maybe lucky) watching Federer and Nadal for the next while? Women's side seems to be more wide open but is there a few female player's we can expect to see a lot of (on the court, not the tabloids). And while the game appears to evolve quicker than the bags under my eyes, what do you like about the current game and what would you like to see change?

David Miles, Burlington

A: Well, David, glad to have you back. To be honest, I tuned out of the pro game for about a decade as well. Right now, I'd say the men's tour is as good as it's ever been, but the question you ask is a good one. Can anybody consistently challenge Federer and Nadal? At the moment, only Novak Djokovic seems to be close, and he has one Grand Slam title to Federer's 13 and Nadal's six. Andy Murray has flirted with moving into challenging territory, but he's not quite there yet, although he's the best player on the tour without a Grand Slam title at the moment. Andy Roddick's time is over. Ditto for James Blake and Marat Safin. There are some young players capable of winning a Grand Slam eventually such as Gael Monfils of France, Juan Martin Del Potro of Argentina, Marin Cilic of Croatia and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France. The question of whether we're going to be watching Federer and Nadal contest most of the finals in the future right now seems to revolve mostly around Federer. Can he maintain the incredible pace of making finals, or will 2009 be the year he drops off. Certainly at the Aussie Open he was outstanding until the fifth set of the final, but the French Open is next and then he goes back to Wimbledon for the first time in a long time not as the defending champion.

How quickly could this two-man rivalry get boring? Not yet, but certainly more players in the mix makes it more interesting.

The women's tour, meanwhile, is a bit of a disaster at the moment. Too many stars have disappeared and those near the top haven't had tremendous Grand Slam success (Jelena Jankovic). In general, the level of competition has fallen off, and the dreadful Aussie Open final between Serena Williams and Dinara Safina was evidence of that.

For the most part, I love the modern game. We could always use more net play in singles, but there is a lot of variety and there are many contrasting styles on tour. To me, the way in which the men, in particular, hit the ball with such ferocity has turned modern tennis into almost a violent sport, and the athletes are so much stronger and more conditioned that the level of play is really something to watch. Some pine for the days of Laver and Rosewall when there was more finesse than power, but not me.

Comments

[Scott R.]

Roddick's time is over? Did he not make it to the semis of a Grand-Slam? Sure he got beat easily but he'll be around for a while if he can keep is temper in check.

[Matt Goff]

Damien..I would say that Andy Murray is the only one outside of Nadal and Roger who can win a Grand Slam this year or next. Murray, like Nadal, is in Roger's head and although he comprehensively beat Andy in the US open, Andy has improved a lot since then. He had the flu during the Aussie, and wow, how well was Verdasco playing! I agree that the likes of Roddick, Blake, Hewitt etc - all done. I like Del Porto and the French due to Monfills and Tsonga - but Roger destroyed Del Porto recently and there is a big game between the top four and the rest. Its a great sport at the moment - but I expect Nadal, Roger and Murray to dominate over the next couple of years.

[Gary]

It will be interesting to see if Federer can recover from what was obviously an emotionally devestating loss to Nadal at the Aussie Open.
I think he was crying because he know he played so "tight" in the 5th set. Basically he choked.
So will he get up off the canvass and challenge or will he quit a la Borg? Being number 2 is not something I believe his ego can handle, and he knows that coming just shy of Sampras' all time grand slam record is a very strong possibility.
A year ago I don't think he would have thought that possible, but he's now lost to Nadal on grass, clay and hard courts. Should be interesting to watch.

[John T.]

I agree a cool down is in order.

Nevertheless, two statements were made to start the argument. You said "I only said and will continue to say that it was a waste to sacrifice first, second, and third round picks to move up two spots and draft (Schenn) at fifth."

You are saying the cost of moving two spots was three draft picks. That is simply not true. No matter how one feels about the trade itself, you either miswrote (in which case, as a journalist, you should work on that) or you twisted the truth to fit your motives (and it wouldn't be the first time).

Either way, censorship isn't the answer.
Quit hating so hard, it's unbecoming.

[Victor]

Hey Damien, What do you think it will cost the Leafs to move up two spots in this years draft? Haha. It sounds like you have a fun job.

One other thing, I can only hope Luke Schenn plays 21 years in the NHL like that leaf cast off Luke Richardson.

I have watched more tennis in the last years than I have in a decade combined as well. It was wimbledon last year that turned me on again.

[A-Mar]

Okay... here's the deal... if you want to talk about the COST of moving two spots in the draft in the sense of moving up two spots, then it is a 2nd and 3rd that were sacrificed... BUT, and here's where people seem to get lost if you look at the actual transaction it was a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, for a 1st... thus three picks were actually exchanged for one pick. Three picks surrendered, only two sacrificed. I get the same feeling as Damien about the cost of moving up when Toronto is so severely lacking in impact prospects.

Even if moving up was a complete necessity wouldn't drafting the best player available have made more sense?

I guess the real point from where I sit is that comparable players (Tyler Myers, Colton Teubert, Colby Robak) were drafted 7, 8, and 41 picks later... watching the World Juniors with Jordan Eberle, Nikita Filatov, and Cody Hodgson tearing it up, Boedker making the NHL and outperforming the more highly touted Turris, and Wilson + Beach develop serious game makes me question picking a defenceman whose greatest upside is that of Adam Foote...

[arnold hogan]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and wait about 5-8 years before deciding how the 2008 draft went. I KNOW that it is too early to designate any of the players taken EIGHT MONTHS AGO in any fashion(especially not based on performance at the world juniors, that's hockey 101). It's foolish to rate these players now because the trajectory of player development is nothing more than an indication at this point in a career. I offer as evidence Joe Thornton and Sergei Samsonov. Joe was drafted at number one and Sergei wasn't. Sergei had a stellar rookie season and Joe most certainly did not. Who, my fellow hockey fans, is a more valuable player now/career?

Going from three prospective players to one prospective player isn't likely the way that I would approach building an NHL team, but maybe Luke Schenn turns out to have Joe Thornton or Scott Stevens value and my plan wouldn't have worked. But we'll see and I look forward to watching.