Raining Dogs and Lefties

Now, I understand Mark Buerhle is a ballplayer who will make $11 million next year (jumps to $19 million in 2015!), which gives him a certain position in society. At 33, he must be already wise in the ways of the world, and let's assume he's unique among Americans in that he has travelled widely and sampled the culture and living conditions of other nations.

I also understand that he's a new Blue Jay, and given the playoff-less drought of the past two decades, and given the fact many U.S. ballplayers prefer not to play north of the Canada-U.S. border, we're especially hoping he'll feel comfortable in his new surroundings.

But perhaps Buerhle might be willing to spend, say, a week in our fair country before he starts recommending which laws require changing and which ones are fine by him.

Perhaps, in the case of the ban on pit bulls in Ontario, he might want to do a little investigating. Find out why the ban was put in place in 2005. Talk to some of those injured by that particular dog breed. Find out if there has been an appreciable change in dog attacks since the ban. Find out if there were any unique circumstances that led to the ban. And so forth.

Perhaps Buerhle, despite the fact he's a ballplayer and thus special, might want to show Canada just a wee bit of respect and live here for a spell before he begins to lecture the country on its legal system, culture and values with respect to animals.

Just a suggestion.

Now, don't get me wrong, I kind of get where Buerhle is coming from. I'm a proud dog owner, with a 14-year-old Labrador retriever and a 12-year-old Golden Retriever, and hopefully a Golden puppy on the way next year. I like big athletic dogs, and the various varieties of pit bulls are powerful, muscular dogs, attractive to my eye.

I also agree with the sentiment that there are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Dogs need more protection from man than man needs protection from dogs.

So Buerhle and I are good so far. Also, the fact that his pit bull is a "rescue" dog certainly is a plus. He obviously cares for dogs and the breed, and many owners of Staffordshire bull terriers, American bull terriers and other pit bull types could fill this space easily with good stories about these dogs as pets.

However, there were reasons why pit bills were banned in Ontario. it didn't just happen in a vacuum.

Perhaps the law was hasty or too sweeping, but a series of ugly incidents over many years involving the dogs, sometimes involving children, spurred legislators to act. Pit bulls aren't the only dogs to have ever bitten or attacked humans, but they certainly were involved in a number of problematic situations that caused an outcry. The unwillingness of the breed to stop attacking once they start makes them a frightening foe if confronted.

Which is why, of course, some like to own them. On their own, with good training, they can be useful and non-threatening dogs. But there are bad dog owners out there, and you put one of these dogs in the hands of such a person, it can be dangerous.

Not always. But it can be. 

This is not "discriminatory." Dogs are animals, and there any number of animals, mostly exotic ones, that you cannot keep as pets or in domestic situations. The Ontario law on pit bulls was challenged in court and stood up to the challenge.

I can't keep a cow on my front lawn, either. Or walk a tiger in the neighborhood. I'm not sure if I can keep a shark in my swimming pool or not. It's probably good I don't have a pool.

Animal ownership is regulated, and for specific reasons. Pit bulls as a breed were banned for specific reasons in Ontario, as they were in Dade Country down in Florida where the Miami Marlins play, which is why Buerhle during his season with the Marlins had to live in a different county. A variety of constituencies in North America and around the world have dropped pit bull bans, while the state of Maryland adopted one this year.

It's still a very debatable issue. Statistics have shown dog bites declined in Ontario after the pit bull ban was enacted. That's imprecise data that could be attributed to any number of factors, but the number in itself is compelling.

I'm certainly not anxious to re-introduce pit bills back into Ontario. Why? So Buerhle doesn't have to deal with the inconvenience? What benefit is there to Ontarians in general to have to deal with these issues and possible problems again? Do we have an insufficient variety of breeds for domestic use? Do we think unsavoury and incapable dog owners won't be drawn again to this breed?

I'm also thinking both Buerhle and the Blue Jays might want to tread carefully here. If the player and/or the team get behind a repeal of the ban, and then Ontario finds itself dealing with the pit bull issue all over again, both Buerhle and the team might find themselves attracting unwanted publicity.

I'm certain Buerhle means well and is passionate about the issue. Advocates of repealing pit bull bans here and elsewhere are always passionate.

But perhaps a little respect for the country that is welcoming you to work and live might go a long way here. Just spend a little time in Canada first before advocating legislative change. Fair enough?

 

 

1,461 Days of Burke

Four hard years.

Can't see how else Brian Burke would describe his days in Toronto since he stepped up to the podium on Nov. 29, 2008 and accepted the job as president and general manager of the Maple Leafs.

It feels like it's been more of a sentence than an appointment to a high-paying job.

Hopes were incredibly high that day at the Air Canada Centre. Just 17 months earlier, Burke had lifted the Stanley Cup with the Anaheim Ducks. He seemed the perfect fit.

And still may be, depending on your point of view.

Burke knows his reputation has taken a hit in these past four years. He has stuck his neck out time and time again, sometimes creating the issue and then sticking his neck out. The incredibly frustrating thing for him now is to have to sit by helplessly during the NHL lockout, unable to do anything to prove he's done many more right things during his tenure in Toronto than wrong ones.

To a large extent, he knew what he was getting into. His rationale for making the Phil Kessel trade was that if he didn't get things moving with the Leafs in three years, there would be calls for his neck. And he was right.

He has fought with Don Cherry, fought with Francois Allaire, fought with many members of the media. He has fired Ron Wilson, traded Tomas Kaberle, testified against the New Jersey Devils and stolen Jake Gardiner and Joffrey Lupul.

He organized a team that won silver for the U.S. at the 2010 Olympics. He has given his time and money to countless charitable contributions and struggled through some extremely difficult personal issues, including the death of his son Brendan in a car crash.

My goodness, a heck of a lot has happened in four years. A playoff berth hasn't, however, and that remains the dark shadow over Burke as he waits to see if he'll even get a chance to be the architect of a Leaf entry in next spring's post-season tournament.

After four years, this seems to be the essence of Burke's time in Toronto; what he has said has hurt him more than what he has actually done.

What he has done is rebuild from the ashes, construct a championship-quality farm team, build with youth, compile an impressive list of draft choices and played the salary cap game well, making sure the Leafs weren't entangled with any of those nasty, double-digit year contracts. While the Kessel deal haunts him, he has made more good deals than bad ones. He has compiled a blueline of the future with Gardiner, Stuart Percy, Morgan Rielly and Matt Finn and added two top 10 NHL scorers in Kessel and Lupul.

The Dion Phaneuf deal was a steal, but Phaneuf has had an uneven run as captain. The team isn't the big, physical team many believed it would be. Nazem Kadri, Burke's first top pick in Toronto, has yet to make an imprint at the NHL level. Goaltending has been a constant concern. Wilson stayed too long as coach. 

But what has hurt Burke the most has been the things he's said and promised, from vowing "truculence and belligerence" to vowing not to fire Wilson in mid-season, from calling James Reimer the "real deal" to, at least in the minds of many, guaranteeing the Leafs would be a playoff team by now. 

It took the Kings nine years to build a Stanley Cup winner, so it's reasonable to say after four years the Leafs are on track to constructing a contending organization. But rather than examine where the club actually is, many focus on Burke's words, his penchant for hyperbole and overstatement to make a bold point, and those words have tripped him up time and time again.

Given what the man has gone through with his family, I'm amazed he's able to get up in the morning and function, let alone run the hockey team in this hockey-intense market. He's never asked any special consideration for that, and none has been given by most.

From October to January last season, the Leafs were in a strong playoff position. When they collapsed in February and ultimately missed the post-season, the blame was heaped on Burke, not the players. Fair enough. That comes with the job.

His future is now more complicated with new ownership having taken over. It's always a little trickier convincing the people who didn't hire you as opposed to those who did. What the Teachers Pension Fund loved about him may not be what Bell and Rogers are looking for in a hockey boss.

His future in Toronto is as cloudy four years after he arrived as the immediate future of the league itself. That said, it's also clear that when it all starts up again, he's got to win. Love him or hate him, no one would disagree on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncertainty for Team Canada

The loss of defenceman Ryan Murray to shoulder surgery notwithstanding, Canada's national junior team could, in theory, still ice the most powerful squad next month in Russia it's been able to cobble together since 2005 in Grand Forks, the last time the NHL was locked out.

On the other hand, if the NHL were to strike a deal with the NHL Players Association in the very near future, Team Canada would probably be seriously weakened as top juniors headed to NHL camps.

Then there's the in between, the gray area.

What happens if the Canadian junior team begins its selection camp Dec. 10 in Calgary, and then the NHL lockout ends?

It could get a little messy.

Normally, at least in recent years, the rule has been that once a player is loaned to the junior team by his NHL club, he's there from the beginning of camp to the end of the tournament. It's been this way ever since Eric Lindros, Trevor Kidd and Kimbi Daniels were airlifted into Germany just a few days before the beginning of the '92 tournament and the result was a disaster.

But this year's lockout might force Canada to rethink those rules, at least if it wants to try and send the best team possible to Ufa, having already seen the impressive quality of the Russian entry during the recent CHL Super Series.

The primary problem may revolve around Edmonton Oilers centre Ryan Nugent-Hopkins.

Even after playing in the NHL last season, RNH is still eligible for the world juniors. Right now, he and other Oiler prospects are ripping it up with the Oklahoma City Barons of the AHL, but there seems to be a sense Nugent-Hopkins could be made available to Team Canada.

However, that might come with a condition, specifically that if the NHL lockout ends before Canada's first game against Germany on Dec. 26th, the Oilers would have the choice of yanking Nugent-Hopkins back for full-time NHL duty. Technically, Canada would still have time to summon a replacement, but it would surely be a major distraction.

Theoretically, Canada could be awfully strong down the middle with RNH, Mark Scheifele, Jonathan Huberdeau and Ryan Strome, not to mention 17-year-old Nathan MacKinnon of the Halifax Mooseheads. If the NHL were to start up before the selection camp, the guessing is that Nugent-Hopkins, Scheifele, Huberdeau and Strome would be NHL bound, at least temporariliy.

However, if they attend the selection camp, right now the speculation is that all would stay regardless of the NHL labour situations with the exception of Nugent-Hopkins.

So if you're Kevin Prendergast and Steve Spott, do you take RNH knowing you might lose him on the eve of the tournament, and knowing it could set a precedent for the future?

Or do you forge ahead with the selection camp without him knowing that its possible the NHL might not solve its lockout woes before Dec. 26 and he might have been available all along?

It's a tricky call, particularly knowing that if special consideration is given to the Oilers in terms of being able to pull Nugent-Hopkins back, it might be difficult to deny the Boston Bruins the same rights with Dougie Hamilton, or Carolina with Ryan Murphy, or the Maple Leafs with Morgan Rielly.

Every time the NHL shuts down there's the potential of a big upside for Canada's national junior team. This time, however, it could come with serious complications.

 

 

 

 

The Generation That Built This League

The amazing thing about talking to NHL pensioners about the way in which their interests are not being represented at the table in current CBA as described in The Star today is that none really have much negative to say about today's owners or players.

Milt Schmidt, who is in limbo along with hundreds of former players about important Senior Benefits that require a new agreement between the NHL and NHLPA, says he's "grateful" for the decision in 2005 that gave players those benefits and doesn't resent modern-day players for the money they make.

"More power to 'em!" says Schmidt, a member of Boston's famed Kraut Line along with Bobby Bauer and Woody Dumart. "I can thank the good game of hockey for everything I have."

None express bitterness over the fact that current players - Erik Cole is the latest example - talk in grand, vague terms about fighting for the rights of future players, but don't seem to have the same regard for the rights and needs of players who skated in the NHL in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Bob Nevin was one of six players in the Montreal hotel room back in 1967 when the NHLPA was first recognized by NHL owners.

"That union was hard fought for," he says. "But it ended up doing not as much as what we hoped for."

Nevin's pension for playing 1,128 NHL games is $8,500 a year.

"I remember Clarence Campbell saying we had the best pension in sports," says Nevin. "I'll remember that until the day I die. What was he talking about?"

At issue today is the monies owed players 65 and older as part of the Senior Benefit Plan established in 2005 by a letter agreement accompanying that year's collective bargaining agreement. The Senior Benefit is funded by $2 million annually from the NHLPA matched by the NHL. It is not legally part of their pensions nor part of the actual CBA, but it expired when the old CBA did.

Ex-players over the age of 65, or their surviving widows, receive $1,380 for every season played. Current NHL Alumni executive director Mark Napier is hoping to have the pool of money increased. Ex-players are owed their next payment in January, but without a new CBA, they may not get it.

Ex-Leaf Danny Lewicki says he hopes that today's players understand why they should support older players."I hope they realize what players went through for the love of the game," he says. "It wasn't for money, I can tell you that."

Lewicki remembers making his highest salary of $12,500 while with the New York Rangers, and then approaching GM Muzz Patrick for a $2,000 raise after a good season.

"Muzz threw me out of his office," says Lewicki.

Lewicki said he was pleased when the NHL and NHLPA agreed seven years ago to start jointly funding the Senior Benefit Plan, which expired when the current CBA expired Sept. 15.

"I was gratified, but surprised. Very surprised," he said.

Wally Stanowski, 93, says he used to "hate" the Leafs because of the "cheap" way in which the club dealt with its former players. He said he was approached by Ken Dryden to attend the closing of Maple Leaf Gardens, but he was in Mexico at the time and the offer quickly disappeared because he would have needed to have his flight expenses covered.

Stanowski said current Leaf GM Brian Burke has softened his view. He said when he was invited to drop the puck at a Leaf game two years ago, Burke gave him 12 tickets for his family and sent a chauffered car to pick him up.

"Burke changed my mind," said Stanowski.

Stanowski won a Memorial Cup in 1938 with the St. Boniface Seals, a team that had only 10 players and a budget of $800 to cover TWO seasons.

Stanowski, who played for the Leafs between 1939 and 1948, said the most he made with the Leafs was $5,000 in a season, out of which $900 was deducted for his pension and was supposed to be matched by the owners.

"But no team ever did it," he says. "They just washed their hands of it."

Schmidt, by the way, had a message for Stanowski when he heard that I was interviewing both for today's story.

"One night Bill Barilko hit me so hard that I did a complete somersault," said Schmidt. "I landed on top of Stanowski. So thank him for the soft landing, will you?"

Stanowski is a huge baseball fan, but says he rarely watches today's hockey.

"I think it's terrible," he said. "They keep shooting the puck in and going after it. What happened to possession?"

Dallas Smith, 71, says he worries that if the Senior Benefit Plan isn't renewed, that the Emergency Players Fund that helps players in desperate need might also be lost.

He cites the experience of the late Fern Flaman, who suffered from cancer at the same time his wife was dealing with dementia.

"He needed help," says Smith. "He got some, but not as much as he needed."

Like most, he doesn't really pick sides in the current lockout, although he says in his day he had to "fight for every nickle" he could get in salary.

"I don't really blame the owners," he says. "But I hope to God something happens with our benefits. I don't think that (Donald) Fehr cares."

 

 

Three Tuesday Morning Thoughts To Chew On

At first glance. . .

It certainly seems like the NHLPA has a little quid pro quo in mind.

Back in 2004-05, if forcing the union to dump Bob Goodenow as executive director wasn't the end game of NHL owners, it was certainly a priority.

Now, more and more, it feels like the union wants to even the score. It would love to force the owners to replace Gary Bettman as commissioner in order to get a new collective bargaining agreement in place.

It seems far-fetched, a remote objective. Then again, Goodenow seemed impregnable seven years ago, and he was toppled from within. As if to make their point clear, the players then mutinied on the next two executive directors as well.

From uncalled-for verbal arrows from players like Ian White and Kris Versteeg to the daily drumbeat of idiotic propaganda from agent Allan Walsh to the overall attempt by the Fehr Bros. leadership to personalize this labour squabble and suggest Bettman and a small number of owners are holding the game hostage, it's clear the players union would  hold a massive celebration if the owners were to dismiss Bettman.

It's not likely to happen. If Fehr is looking for cracks in the NHL armour, the best he's been able to get so far is a story based on unnamed sources out of Philadelphia suggesting Flyers boss Ed Snider is wavering, although Snider and Bettman both flatly denied the story.

The union will need more than that to get Bettman fired. They might also want to consider whether the effort is worth it.

After all, four years after Goodenow was dumped, the players turned to Donald Fehr. Think that's made the owners' job of getting the deal they want any easier?

In other words, there's little to no chance that if the owners did replace Bettman, the next guy would be any more to the liking of the NHLPA.

And at second glance. . .

What, Jimy Williams wasn't available?

After all, if the Blue Jays were going to recycle unsuccessful former managers, Williams would be a front of the line, wouldn't he?

Imagine if the Leafs re-hired Mike Murphy as head coach, the Raptors turned to Butch Carter again and the Argos decided Gary Etcheverry deserved another shot.

People would say, wow, what a clever idea?

Not that John Gibbons isn't the right manager for the new-look Jays. Who knows, really? Two years ago - heck, last spring - everyone seemed to think John Farrell was the perfect manager.

Here's what is weird. When teams recycle coaches or executives, it's usually because that individual had noteworthy success the first time around. So the Leafs brought back Punch Imlach and Cliff Fletcher. The Yankees kept bringing back Billy Martin. The Jays seemed to have interest in bringing back Bobby Cox before Cox said no.

Usually, however, a guy who didn't work out the first time doesn't get a second shot. Gibbons was .500 overall as a manager and had 87 wins in his best season. Maybe he deserved a better shot. But they all say that.

"You guys were as far off as I was," chuckled Gibbons this morning at a hastily called news conference, acknowledging he was "surprised" to be hired.

"I would never have thought this could happen."

What Gibbons seems to be is several things. One, he's a former catcher, and catchers-as-managers are all the rage in baseball. He's extremely popular with the media, no small thing. Farrell, never cuddly, couldn't get those rave reviews that help a manager.

Gibbons also has a bit of old school about him, and when you've had players running out on the field with homophobic slurs on their eye-black, it seems natural a team might figure a little discipline could go a long way. Lots of folks remember Gibbons getting in the face of players like Shea Hillenbrand after Hillenbrand sulked then wrote defamatory comments about the team on a clubhouse board.

Finally, Gibbons is a known commodity to the Jays and Alex Anthopoulos, and one who won't come to Toronto thinking of the Jays job as a stepping stone to something bigger.

So something old is new again..

And from a third angle. . .

So the Hamilton Tiger-Cats will play their home games next season out of the University of Guelph campus at 15,000 Alumni Stadium.

And this makes sense to somebody?

Sure, the Packers used to play home games out of Milwaukee, but let's face it, all of Wisconsin adores The Pack.

All of Ontario doesn't love the Tabbies. Sometimes it's hard to figure out whether Hamilton does.

It's only one season, sure, while Ivor Wynne is torn down and a new 22,500-seat stadium is built. But Guelph still it's a strange decision. Why the team could not cut a deal with McMaster - the two sides tried repeatedly to get together - is a mystery. Guelph has little or no connection historically or otherwise with Steeldown. Logistically, it may be just as easy or even easier to navigate the team back-and-forth from Hamilton up Highway 6 to Guelph than to other possible locations, but Guelph is definitely foreign territory.

How the team boxed itself in like this is a story in itself, and it won't make it any easier as the CFL tries once again to build its brand in a southern Ontario market that has rejected it over and over.

The issue won't be whether Guelph supports the Tiger-Cats, although seriously, why would it? It will be whether Hamilton remembers the Cats when they want to come home again.

 

 

 

 

Celebrate, But With a Modicum of Restraint

It's elation and "OMG, OMG!!" and "Happy Days Are Here Again," all with barely restrained glee at finally being the buyer and not the team selling off.

After all, it's a fire sale. And in a fire sale, the buyer always gets a fabulous bargain, right?

Well, not in sports. So let's just slow down a wee bit here.

This may work out to be the equivalent or better of the 10-player Doug Gilmour deal two decades ago, another deal that was partly motivated by a team (Calgary) looking to move salary, or at least players demanding more money.

But even that ridiculously one-sided trade had its limitations. Gilmour played parts of six seasons in Toronto, not 16, and the other pieces - Jamie Macoun, Rick Walmsley, Kent Manderville and Ric Nattress - were useful, but none were all-stars or impact players.

In Tuesday's gigantic Jays deal with the Miami Marlins, the Jays are hoping to land THREE impact players, not just one. If it turns out, for example, that Josh Johnson wins 18 games but Jose Reyes struggles with the $96 million left on his deal and picky Mark Buerhle doesn't want to play in Canada, well it won't be quite the same, will it? Or what if Johnson has no inclination to stay and bolts after next season as a free agent?

Or what if MLB decides no, no, no, this isn't a good deal for baseball? The headline on MLB.com this morning was "Jays, Marlins Working on Blockbuster," so there's some details and approvals still to be put in place here.

Moreover, the reality is that the Jays really don't know what they gave up in this trade. None of Adeiny Hecchevaria, Henderson Alvarez, Justin Nicolino, Anthony DeSclafani or Jake Marisnick were seen as untouchables, none as a Steven Strasburg or a Bryce Harper.

But no one imagined last spring that all of them, plus Travis Snider and Eric Thames and Yan Gomes and Asher Wojciechowski and Joe Musgrove and other pieces of the farm system, would all be peddled for immediate help.

That, of course, is partly why you have a farm system, to put in place assets that can be transferred for short-term need.

But that's a lot of wild cards the Jays have moved in a period of four months. Maybe none will turn out. But remember deals like the '07 swap in which Texas moved Mark Teixara to Atlanta for youngsters Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison and Jarrod Saltalamacchia, all of whom became big-leaguers.

This is a major change in direction by Alex Anthopoulos and Co., all motivated not by logic or design, necessarily, but by an awful, injury-scarred 2012 season. 

It's hard to say what the plan is now, other than win now.

One other point. Anthopoulos hasn't really made his reputation as a particularly astute trader in his young exective career. He's added lots of parts, and the most significant ones, Colby Rasmus and Brett Lawrie and Travis d'Arnaud, are still very much in the developmental stage. Brandon Morrow, if he can stay healthy for a season or two, is probably AA's most significant success, although Brandon League turned out to be a player the Jays could surely have used.

That's how trades work. Very rarely are they as wildly one-sided as many Jays fans want to believe this one is.

Still, it was a good deal for the Jays to make, to attempt, and it comes at a time when Jays fans are responding more favourably at the gate and in TV numbers, but are also voicing concerns about the ownership and its willingness to spend.

instead of worrying about whether Ricky Romero will rebound, the Jays will now spend the winter imagining whether J.A. Happ can be the No. 5 starter in a rotation that on paper looks like one of the best in the American League. Behind that rotation appears to be a well-stocked bullpen. There is still youth at catcher, third base and in the outfield and viable prospects in the system, which hasn't been gutted but has lost noteworthy depth. If Drew Hutchison and Kyle Drabek fight their way back from major surgeries, there is still youth in the pitching corps.

So if you're Anthopoulos, and if you're Rogers Communications, of course you make this deal. Fans with a lot of other MLB teams will be asking today why their GM didn't feast on the cost-cutting Marlins in the same way.

For Toronto, its a welcome change, a different feel after what feels like years and years of slow building with youth by the Jays, Raptors and Leafs, years and years of watching teams in other cities pull off these kind of game-changing swaps.

Real possibility is better than wild dreams, and the Jays are clearly now a team of real possibility.

Just be smart and don't imagine that it didn't come at a cost, that all the Jays acquired will be gold and nothing they sent to Florida will ever matter.

At this point, Jays fans should content themselves with the notion that if both teams win in this deal, it will have been a very good deal for Toronto.

 

 

 

The Misogynists Fight Back

Perhaps it was just a pause.

Or an outrageous oversight that will be quickly addressed and corrected.

If neither is the cause, how appalling and embarrassing for the secret society that is the Hockey Hall of Fame to go back to ruthlessly excluding women from it's honored ranks.

Wasn't this battle fought and decided already?

It was three years ago, after all, that the HHOF announced that in addition to have up to four male players inducted - note: in addition to, not in place of - there would annually also be room for up to two female players.

It was a compromise. The old white men running the establishment were never going to even attempt to put women on the same footing as men. Even in being dragged kicking and screaming into the new millenium, they needed to make sure women were treated in a separate category. Fine. If the point was to recognize the enormous contributions of women to the sport, particularly in the last three decades, it was a necessary compromise to make.

In 2010, Cammi Granato and Angela James became the first two women so honored in a group alongside Dino Ciccarelli, Doc Seaman and Jimmy Devallano. A barrier had been broken, and it seemed clear the obvious backlog of strong female candidates would start to be addressed.

Well, apparently not.

Last year, the quartet of Doug Gilmour, Joe Nieuwendyk, Mark Howe and Ed Belfour was inducted, a deserving group. 

But no women.

This year, it was Mats Sundin, Adam Oates, Pavel Bure and Joe Sakic. 

But no women. Again, none of Sundin, Oates, Bure or Sakic would have had to have been excluded to include a woman.

Now, we already knew the secret-handshake boys of the HHOF generally have no real regard for the women's game. In being forced into accepting women in the first place, they were being paternalistic at best, patronizing at worst.

There, there, they seemed to be saying, we've let two women in. Now let us go back to doing what we really believe in, which has generally been to make sure cronies and those who play ball get in and others are kept out. (If someone can possibly explain why Brendan Shanahan and his 656 career goals were not found Hall worthy this year, I'd love to hear it. But, of course, the super-secret HHOF never explains itself.)

Now, it's like they let a couple of girls in to the NHL treehouse but left the "Boys Only!" sign up.

Nobody says there have to be as many men as women. No one is screaming for equality in numbers. No one is saying great NHL or international male players should be excluded so that women can enter the hall. No one is saying the HHOF even has to eliminate the obvious old boys network that got the likes of Harold Ballard and Gil Stein (briefly) inducted. Although it should.

But there was an understanding that having excluded women for so long, there would be a real effort to address the backlog. There's a long list of worthy candidates that has been published here and elsewhere. You could put one in the HHOF every year for a decade and the backlog would have been addressed in a meaningful way.

It wouldn't reduce the profile of the Hall. It would enchance it, make the HHOF richer by embracing the sport beyond just men.

Yet now here we are, three years after the HHOF changed the rules, and the last two draft classes have included ZERO women. Are they now saying only Granato and James were worthy, and since then they haven't been able to unearth another quality female inductee?

When you look at the all-male, 18-member selection committee listed on the HHOF home page, of course, it's not that surprising women continue to be ignored. The group includes Jim Gregory, Pat Quinn, Scotty Bowman, David Branch, Brian Burke, Colin Campbell, John Davidson, Mike Gartner, Anders Hedberg, Igor Larionov, Lanny McDonald, Serge Savard, Peter Stastny and Bill Torrey. As well, the committee includes media members Michael Farber, Eric Duhatschek, Marc de Foy and Mike Emrick.

None of the people on the committee have the slightest official connection as a player or executive to women's hockey. At least Duhatschek and Farber have written about the sport, particularly Duhatschek, who has covered women's hockey extensively. Under Burke's administration, it should also be noted, the Maple Leafs have agreed to sponsor the Toronto Furies of the Canadian Women's Hockey League.

But until there's a female voice and vote on the selection committee, this unfairness, it would seem, will continue. Put one of James, Granato, Cassie Campbell, Manon Rheaume, Daniele Sauvageau, Margot Page, Therese Brisson or Geraldine Heaney on the committee and at least you would have someone with intimate knowledge of the women's game to seriously consider the qualifications of female candidates.

Until that happens, injustice would continue, it would appear.

It's a shame, really. So much good done in 2009 has already been undone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

only two teams

not just about Olympic hockey

 

Too Good To Not Remember Well

Mats Sundin is in a rare position for an athlete.

The longer the distance grows between the last time he laced up his skates as a Maple Leaf, the greater his legacy becomes.

To some degree, that's because Leaf fans now surely understand the treasure they had in Sundin for all those years, if only because of what has followed. There isn't a Leaf on the roster now that holds a candle to him, not a Leaf who looks like he'll follow in Sundin's Hall of Fame steps. Dion Phaneuf and Phil Kessel aren't even close to what Sundin was as captain and best offensive player when he wore the blue-and-white.

Beyond the ice, Sundin's pure class from the moment he arrived in that famous trade with Quebec has yet to be replaced. He always said the right thing, never embarrassed the team, never found himself emerged in scandal or the slightest trouble, never was accused of not caring or not giving his all.

That there were critics of Sundin, vicious ones at times, now seems absurd, looking back. We have prominent players in town now, from Jose Bautista to Chad Owens and Ricky Ray to Andrea Bargnani, but none compare to the graceful Swede in terms of his consistency, durability and productiveness over more than a decade.

Some didn't like the fact he wasn't a fiery captain. Perhaps he wasn't a perfect one. But look at the trials and tribulations the team has experienced finding a new one since he left. Phaneuf wears the "C" today, but not with any particular comfort, not with any sense he earned it or was the natural successor to Sundin.

Was Sundin fully appreciated? I'd say he was, perhaps not as much as he would have been had he led the club to a Stanley Cup, and one is always mystified by those players who are deified as Leafs and those who can't ever earn their due. He accomplished more than any Leaf since Darryl Sittler, and he probably accomplished more as a Leaf than Sittler.

The ending wasn't perfect, but you only have to have a conversation with Sundin to understand how much he loves and appreciates our spectacular but athletically underachieving city - would you rather have an undesirable city and winning teams? - and given the long stream of athletes and coaches who have decided they'd rather be somewhere else, that's rare. 

He was an outstanding player and an ambassador for the franchise and the city, and the longer he's gone, the more powerful the void he left behind as athlete and personality seems.

Maybe only Frank Mahovlich was quite like this in Leaf history, and with the Big M, it was because he went on to bigger and better things.

Not Sundin. He was at his best and gave his best to the Leafs. Quebec City and Vancouver experienced a little bit of him, but not even close to what Toronto got.

Someday, another like him will come along. But it might not be soon.

 

 

Don't Buy the Drama

Two things seem abundantly clear.

As much as people want the NHL and NHLPA to be close to a deal on a new collective bargaining agreement, they're not. At least, there's no real information or evidence that should lead you to believe that an agreement is at hand. There's lots of guessing and media speculation, but little real information.

What about the fact they're still meeting in New York? Sure, that's good. But it doesn't mean they're agreeing on anything at all.

The second thing you have to avoid is believing that we are at a critical stage, or at the brink, or that D-Day is upon us, or any of the terms bandied about to suggest the talks are at a pivotal moment.

They're not.

The 1994-95 lockout was ended on Jan. 11. The 2004-05 season was cancelled (finally) on Feb. 16, and there were even talks after that.

We're not even in mid-November yet. Given history, how can anyone possibly say we're at a make-or-break point? That's just phony drama, mostly generated by the media, with little basis in fact.

Right now, both sides are bleeding, and both are assessing on a day-to-day basis how much more they want to bleed, and measuring their losses against the possible gains, and calculating how far they can push the other side for maximum advantage.

That's all this really is at this point. Math, with some poker thrown in. Some want to, as is always the case, turn this into a morality play, something about honour or hypocrisy or doing the right thing.

It's about math. How much has been lost compared to how much can be gained.

In practical terms, of course, the talks that have been going on this week should have been taking place in August, but for a variety of reasons have mostly to do with perceived bargaining strengths and weaknesses on both sides, they didn't.

All that can really be hoped for at this point is that the talks in recent days have clarified positions and started to sketch the outlines of a possible deal. This is complicated stuff. The "make whole" provision, for example, is really about taking a new CBA and then exempting a whack of contracts from that new deal. The concept is one thing, the implementation of such a concept is quite another.

All you can really say is that talks are better than no talks. Period, full stop.

 

 

 

Early Warning

Canada has high hopes of venturing overseas for the world junior championships this winter - yes, this event does occasionally still take place outside of North America - and reclaiming a title it owned for five glorious years between 2005 and 2009.

The last three tourneys have included tough losses for Canada, with the U.S., Russia and Sweden emerging atop the pile at the conclusion of tough battles in Saskatoon, Buffalo and Calgary/Edmonton.

This year the competition is in Ufa, Russia, and based on the team Russia has sent to the CHL Subway Super Series for six gams against all-star teams from the QMJHL, OHL and WHL, the Russians are hellbent on making sure Canada's mini-drought continues.

The Russians blew out Team QMJHL on Monday night 6-2 in the suburbs of Montreal, a game less one-sided that the score might appear. Nathan MacKinnon, Jonathon Huberdeau and friends had lots of chances, but Russian goalie Andrei Vasilevski was brilliant and much better than his Canadian counterpart, Etienne Marcoux.

And where have we heard that theme before?

Vasilevski, picked 19th overall by Tampa Bay last June, was one of three NHL first round picks on the Russian team that also included Nail Yakupov (1st) and Mikhail Grigorenko (12th). Yakupov and Grigorenko both scored, as did Boston second rounder Alexander Kokhlachev. Koklachev, like Yakupov, returned to Russia this season after playing in the CHL, and the Windsor Spitfires are hot on the trail of bringing him back to their team, either after the Super Series or the world juniors.

Monday's game was just the Super Series opener, and the QMJHL squad may do better Wednesday in Val d'Or before the series switches to a pair of games against OHL teams. Over the past decade, CHL teams have dominated this competition, and the OHL is a perfect 18-0. But two years ago, the Russians won the series for the first time, and last year it was a 3-3 draw. Clearly, they're sending better teams and using this more as a staging ground for the world juniors.

It's not a unified Canadian team taking on Russia, of course, but three split all-star teams, so the measure isn't necessarily accurate. It will be interesting to see how closely this Russian team ends up being to what they put on the ice in Ufa.

One of the overriding concerns - again - will be Canada's goaltending. Marcoux was thought to be a top candidate for Team Canada despite being passed over in the NHL draft last June, but Monday certainly won't help his cause. Belleville's Malcolm Subban and Laurent Brossoit of the Edmonton Oil Kings are other leading contenders, with the selection camp just weeks away.

It's been five years since Canada had the best goalie at the event, and not since Carey Price in 2007 has a Team Canada goalie gone on to become a front-line NHLer. In recent years, good junior goalies like Mark Visentin, Scott Wedgewood, Olivier Roy, Jake Allen and Martin Jones have tried and failed to supply the kind of dominant goaltending Canada had grown used to.

In the Super Series, Zachary Fucale of the Halifax Mooseheads will get the start Wednesday. The OHL will use Subban and St. Louis draftee Jordan Binnington, while Brossoit and Eric Comrie of the Tri-City Americans will get their shots in the two games out west.

Hockey Canada would love one of those names to emerge. Soon.