Thursday Mail Bag

It’s pretty much indisputable now that the best thing to happen to the Maple Leafs was that Anaheim got antsy.

DAVID COOPER/TORONTO STAR

Burke's arrival came just in time.

If the Ducks had chosen to, they could have kept Brian Burke right through to the end of this regular season. Burke’s calculation, after telling them he wouldn’t sign a new deal, was that president Michael Schulman wouldn’t want him to be a lame duck GM all year, and that proved to be a case.

Lucky for the Leafs.

Had that not happened, Cliff Fletcher would have remained in charge through to this coming June, and it's difficult to imagine the damage that might have been done by that time.

Fletcher’s a nice man who owns a Stanley Cup ring and is a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. He is part of hockey history, and that will never change.

But he wasn’t a suitable fit to run an NHL team in the cap era, yet Richard Peddie was prepared to let him to do so. Fletcher gave away viable draft picks like candy last summer (even a fifth rounder was obscene for Ryan Hollweg) to try and put a better team on the ice immediately and in so doing hang on to the “interim” GM position. The last piece evidence that he was prepared to sell the future was the deal that brought Lee Stempniak to town for Alex Steen and Carlo Colaiacovo, a deal that will be even more difficult to swallow next season when the light-weight winger earns a $3.5 million salary.

Yesterday, meanwhile, the league fined the Leafs $500,000 and stripped them of a fourth round pick for the Jonas Frogren signing last summer. The contract was illegal, but rather than running it past the NHL first, Fletcher just did it and now the Burke administration is paying the price.

Whether Fletcher really understood that the deal wouldn’t pass muster is unclear. The new CBA, after all, is a complicated beast. But that this was all done to sign Frogren, a marginal NHLer with suspect foot speed who can’t stay healthy, is ridiculous.

Again, the notion was that Frogren would make an immediate difference, however, and that, not long-term growth, was the priority of Fletcher, which is why Jeff Finger was signed to such an outlandish contract

How’s three more years at $3.5 million hit you today?

Burke may never lack for bluster, but he showed great class yesterday in not making any comment at all that could be seen as a condemnation of the previous caretaker administration for the Frogren screwup, and good for him. It would have been easy for him to roll his eyes at the loss of the very same draft pick that he essentially bought from Tampa for $500,000 in a complicated deadline deal, one that he made sure the league would accept BEFORE he did it, so instead he refused comment and issued an nondescript, let's-move-on press release.

But can you imagine if Anaheim had forced Burke to stay and Fletcher had remained in charge for another seven months? For sure, the Leafs would have been buyers before the trade deadline, looking for any and all veterans, even over-priced ones, that could help push the team into a playoff position this season.

Burke offered many reasons for missing the playoffs this season, but he left out the part that he traded away the team’s two best forwards for draft picks a month ago because it was the right thing to do even if it meant making the team less competitive in the short-term.

Fletcher, on the other hand, might have gone out and traded picks away. In fact, we know he did toy with the idea of dealing away the club’s 2009 first rounder to the Ducks.

The good news for Leaf fans is that while Burke and his underrated sidekick Dave Nonis are aggressive managers, they know the CBA and always make the extra phone call.

They’ll make mistakes. Christian Hanson may be the first one, who knows.

But it won’t be because they don’t have a logical plan or don’t know the rules.

Now on to this week’s mail bag:

Q: Hi Damien,

Just want to hear your thoughts on Brian Burke's progress with the Leafs thus far. A year-end report card, if you will. I realize that it is pointless to assess the success of the rebuild at this point, but in my own humble estimation, Burke has done well to pick up prospects/AHL players to help re-stock his cupboard. I like what I see so far, but it's early. Your thoughts?

J.P. Nikota, London

A: It’s way too early to tell. I’m not sure outside of Hanson which prospects/AHL players you are referring to, unless it's Jay Harrison and Jeff Hamilton. The reason for Leaf fans to be hopeful about Burke is that he has a plan and has demonstrated before he can make a plan reality. Moreover, he’s running the organization, which means no interference from ownership or Peddie, he has a strong right-hand man in Nonis and has a good working relationship with head coach Ron Wilson. This is the most unified this organization has been in decades, and it will be even more so once Burke restructures the pro scouting staff this summer and continues to sculpt the hockey office to his liking.

Q: Hey Damien, Do you really think that Justin Pogge has what it takes to be a starter or am I just an impatient Leafhead. Nothing to date with his play, Marlies or Leafs, inspires me. Thanks.

Mark Thornberry, Toronto

A: I don’t see it at this point. But I didn’t see in it Todd Gill when he was 22, either, and he ended up having a long, long NHL career. What is unclear to me is whether Corey Hirsch is a suitable goaltending coach to bring the best out in Pogge, and Burke will have to make that assessment this summer. It would be a shame if the Leafs decided they didn’t even want to re-sign the young goaltender, but these are the tough decisions you have to make in a cap world.

Q: Hey Damien,

Is it just me or has Anton Stralman looked much better since his last stint in the minors? He seems to be stronger on the puck and generally makes a good first pass out of his zone or at least carries it out and sets up a rush.

Could his improved play make it easier for Burke to move Kaberle for a stronger draft choice?

Your thoughts...

Jamie Hubbert, Ottawa

A: Stralman looks the same to me. Fast and a good puck mover, but weak physically and suspect in his own end. That said, the Leafs still believe he’s a good prospect, and teams have asked about him. Tampa was interested in including him in that peculiar deadline deal. So he’ll continue to get a chance, although I have difficulty seeing how he fits the Burke blueline model.

Q: Hey Damien,

Although I don't always agree with your opinions, I always look forward to reading your articles and blogs. Anyway, do you think Ron Wilson should be considered for the Jack Adams award for best coach?

I know he is not the obvious choices, like a Todd McLellan, Claude Julien, Mike Babcock, but I think he has done a much better job with what he was given than these three guys. McLellan inheirited Wilson's work ethic already cemented in the team and if you would have given Wilson Rob Blake and Dan Boyle last year, I'm sure the team would be just as good. Anyways, I think Wilson should be considered for his work this year but if not Wilson then my choice is Ken Hitchcock over any of those other three guys. What do you think?

Kyle D., Burlington

A: I think Wilson has done a very good job with limited resources. But I think you pretty much have to be a playoff team for a coach to win the Jack Adams. If you wanted to consider Wilson, you’d have to look at Peter DeBoer in Florida and Terry Murray in Los Angeles, both of whom have done similarly strong work with mediocre rosters. Wilson just gets a lot more attention because he’s in Toronto. And what about the job ex-Leaf coach Paul Maurice has done in Carolina?

Broadcasters vote on coach-of-the-year. If I had a vote, my top three would be Julien, Hitchcock and either McLellan or Babcock, in that order.

Q: Hi Damien,

First time writer and long time reader. I really think that Wilson and the Leafs are right on the money on trying to win games instead of "tank". You need a winning environment in order for your youth to be successful and losing doesn't always nab you the #1 pick.

My question to you is, what would you look for in the draft if you were Burke? Also, I haven't heard of any top flight goalies in this years crop of players, do you have any insight on that?

Calvin, Milton

A: There isn’t a goalie there they’d take with their top pick, unless they trade down. Burke’s history shows he goes for the best player, regardless of size, nationality or position. I suspect he’ll do the same. He can’t draft an 18-year-old player based on what the team needs now, and by the time that player is truly ready to make a difference in three or four years (at the earliest), the team’s needs may be entirely different. The only thing I would guess is that Burke will make size a priority.

Q: Hi Damien,

Love your column - keep up the good work! I have a question that relates to a mailbag question from last week. It appears that the Leafs will have lots of cap room next year, so here's my idea: the Leafs should sign a big-name guy like Jay Bouwmeester in the off-season.

I understand that he may be looking for $6 million a year, so why not sign him to a 4 year contract at $24 million and pay him $10 million next year (when the Leafs have lots of cap room), and under $5 million in each of the next three years? Or, better yet, why not pay him $10 million next year, $8 million the year after, and $3 million in the remaining two years of his contract? This would give the Leafs a great defenceman at a bargain price in the remaining two years of his contract, and would create lots of cap space for the Leafs to sign free agents when they are (hopefully) poised to make a playoff (... or Cup?) run. I don't know if this would be legal under the current CBA, but I think it would be a great use of all the wasted cap space that the Leafs have.

Aaron McGregor, Kingston

A: The contract would be legal. But if I understand you’re question correctly, you have to understand the cap hit is the average of the contract over its term. So, if as you suggest, Bouwmeester got $10 million in the first year and then $5 million for each of three years, the annual cap hit would be $25 million divided by four, or $6.25 million each year.

The salary would be less, and that’s meaningful in another way, but in terms of using cap space, you can’t do a deal that varies the cap hit from year to year.

Q: Hey Damien,

How many future draft picks do general managers have available to them? For instance, could a GM trade his next 7 first round picks for Ovechkin?

Eric T., Toronto

A: I don’t know of any limitation on the number of draft picks you can trade away, although at some point the league might step in.

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.**

Comments

[mia cutnaslicre]

ok, DC - read your report on Burke and the Leafs and for the first time I agree with everything you said...what took you so long...

[mf37]

I think your interpretation of the Frogren situation really over simplifies things.

The Leafs, NHLPA and Don Meehan all agreed that as a 28 year old Euro, Frogren wasn't restricted to an entry level SPC (that case certainly can be made under multiple sections of the CBA). The NHL disagreed, claiming Frogren was a "defected player"

Even though the Leafs lost that fight, I think it's great that they were creatively trying to add some talent to a team that had been pretty much depleted by the previous administration.

[D-Man]

Pains me to say it, but I have to acknowledge that Damien is correct and has been correct about Cliff. I rate his moves thusly:

Schenn: obviously a good pick as he has proven he can play in the NHL but the cost of a second and third is noteworthy for a bad team. I'd like to know who else the Leafs were considering in the 7th spot.

Grabovski: I am fine dealing a second for a skilled 24 yr old.

Finger: Serviceable, very bad contract. Misread the coming marketplace.

Hagman: Good player, probably two years too early for this team, too much term. Dallas could certainly use him.

Hollweg/Mayers/Frogren: First one ridiculous, second one too pricey, third gets worse every day.

Wilson: Excellent hire.

08 draft: They seem to have found some decent upside later in Hayes and Stefanovich.

Van Ryn: Good return for a bad contract, though not as good as mccabe.

Tucker buyout: fantastic

[D-Man]

Stempniak: I always liked Carlo and believe Wilson could have made him better or Burke could have gotten more in return. Steen has no set role on a Burke team. Not skilled enough for top six, not abrasive enough for bottom six. But Stempniak offers little except a smaller cap hit (1.8) than salary (3.5) next year. I expect he will be a Marlie. Bad move Fletch.

[ray b]

Fletcher also traded for Grabovski and signed Ron Wilson as the coach..Alex Steen and Coliacovo were duds..Neither looked worthy of being top players on this club..Are you actually suggesting these two bums were a part of the future??..How did he trade away the future for a 25 yr old Stempniak?? Is 25 too old now?? Maybe he hasn't scored as much as they hoped but he looks like a good player and the goals will come..He is a better player then Steen..Coliacovo is a walking medical record..

Fletcher dumped Mcabe and got a decent return in Van Ryan..Too bad the guy keeps getting hurt but this was a good trade for Toronto..Hagman is a top 6 forward and has some great speed..He is a perennial 20-25 goal scorer..

Fletcher traded up to get Luke Schenn and that looks to be a great move as well..

I guess your some kind of genius because you seem to know what Fletcher was going to do..Can I borrow your crystal ball?..Fletcher didn't sign one guy over 30 and if he did trade for Bobby Ryan wouldn't that have been a good deal?..They would have traded a 9th-10th overall pick for a kid who is leading the NHL rookie scoring race..Too bad he didn't do it huh?..

[Bold Bravado]

Damien, I can't believe that we agree on something but, the take on Burke is pretty accurate. I can't stress enough, that although some damage may have been done through Fletch, the majority of the issue's today are carry over from JFJ. He should go down as the worst manager in TML history, and his legacy with the Blues still haunts that team today!! We went into the strike missing a few pieces and came out of it with nothing. The single biggest loss being Roberts. Even more of a concern was the lackluster performances provided by what was deemed the leaders of the team post Quinn. This had become a mainstay, and instead of gaining a task master to replace Quinn, (Who incidentally was the most knowledgeable hockey person in the whole organization at that time) they retained the services of Maurice, who is a great guy, didn’t fit the need, and the vets played him for all it was worth. With Burke the jury is out, I like the fact that he measures himself by the on ice performance of the team, and is quoted as stating how he was disappointed that he could not have made a larger thumb print on the team by now. This off season will prove to be his legacy, and what he will be measured by. Rebuilding doesn’t always have to be painful, Leafs have some money, and there is a decent UFA pool to spend on, in earnest veterans are needed to bring in young talent and put in the right direction. In addition, with the current ticket prices, you need to ice an entertaining product. Things were so bad under Maurice, I stopped going, can you say BORING!!! In any event, for our sake, I hope he is all he’s cracked up to be, sincerely, the time has come to lay the ground work for a serious bid at Stanley within a 3 yr plan.
I have my fingers crossed, I really wish Burke all the best!!

[Ryan]

Agreed that Fletcher did more bad than good in his interim position. I mostly blame the higher ups for putting Fletcher in that position. But on the deadline deal with T Bay, i'm pretty sure Burke didn't run the deal by Bettman to see if it was ok out of due diligence, rather, all trades need NHL approval. If Fletcher did the same deal, and I concede he wouldn't have concocted such a plan, it would have had to be OK'd by the NHL also. I don't see how Hanson could be a mistake. Even if this Friday is the only game he ever plays in the NHL, signing him to a 2 yr entry level contract for any rookie that shows potential is a winning situation. It's not like he is throwing a 5yr 25/mil contract at him nor could he if he wanted to. I just hope they can sign a couple more college kids. Toronto seems to be a good destination and has more opportunity for these kind of kids...and who would want to sign with Atlant/T Bay/Islanders anyway.

[steve]

the "light-weight" Lee Stempniak leads all leafs forwards in hits. I'll take Stempniak over Alex Steen any day of the week. He is basically the same age and has potential to be a consistent, versatile, 2-way 20-25 goal guy (who also plays the point on the PP). Alex Steen will never be more than a 3rd line checker who kills penalties - Steen, in true Leafs fashion, was over-hyped and over-sold throughout his entire tenure here. Carlo Colaiacovo is injury prone, it's a product of the way he plays and the blueline is too crowded here for him. Did we overpay for Stempniak? Yes, in the short term, but Stempniak has more upside.

[D-Man]

Right on ray b. I would take Bobby Ryan for the Leafs 1st in 09 every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The probability that Glennie, or Kadri or Despres or Schroeder becomes a top flight NHLer is not high, while Ryan is already there.

To be somewhat fair to Cox, the mooted trade would have happened early in the season when the Leafs were expected to be a lottery team. Maybe Cliff just knew better on this one. Still, Cox should acknowledge that Ryan was the likely return, rather than tarring Cliff with a simple 'dealing away the club’s 2009 first rounder to the Ducks.'

[DamienCox]

Damien here. . .coupla quick points. . .on Colaiacovo/Steen for Stempniak, what some apparently fail to understand (or won't) is that it was far less important what the two former first rounders were or were going to be, and more important that taking on an underachieving veteran with a huge contract wasn't a good idea.
Second, you can try to twist this until the cows get home, but the reality is that the Leafs gave up a first, second and third to move up in the draft and get Schenn. Period.
Finally, those of you who want to write and argue that Fletcher was going to be able to trade the Leafs first rounder in '09 and make it draft protected to Anaheim straight up for Bobby Ryan are living in a truly amazing dream world.
The Ducks would have wanted much more. Whether it still would have been a good deal we'll never know, but Anaheim didn't make it, so it only exists in the fantasy world.

[Danny Manning]

Mr. Cox - your general point about Burke having a solid plan is correct but you have to let the axe you have to grind with Fletcher go. Wow, patently unfair. There is no evidence to suggest Fletcher was going to go for a playoff position and ignore the long-term plan for his own interests. His moves in the 10 or so months he was in charge were ok. Some good, some bad, some indifferent. As other posters have said in this forum, the term of contracts for Finger and Hagman could become a big problem but the other stuff you're constantly yammering on about is window-dressing, minor details of running an NHL team. Stop using extreme examples - we know you hate Hollweg and that once in a blue moon a fifth-rounder pans out but most are NEVER heard from - but the move at the time was what it was. Ditto Mayers (the guy had just won two WC medals) and Frogren (who could still pan out). LET IT GO.

[Nathan]

Yes, Stempniak the grizzled veteran, being drafted all the way back in the days where we used to huddle around the radio listening to the hockey broadcast...2003. He was born all the way back in February 1983, a whole 8 days after Carlo Coliacavo and he is more than a year older than Alex Steen (March 1984). Horrible trade by Cliff sacrificing youth for...youth?

[Gerard]

- Stempniak, and Colaiacovo are the same age. Steen is one year younger.

- That means, if Stempniak qualifies as a veteran, so do Colaiacovo and Steen.

- So by Damian's own analysis, the Leafs traded an injury-prone veteran (Colaiacovo), and an underachieving veteran (Steen), for a veteran (Stempniak) who was not underachieving as much as Steen.

- Also might help if the cap numbers were checked. Stempniak's cap number is only 1.8 million. What he is actually paid does not matter ... he only counts as 1.8m against the cap. Combined, Steen and Colaiacovo were something like 2.2m. Which means Fletcher actually saved the team close to half a million on the cap with this deal.