WordsOfWisdom

I mention this in another thread but the Leafs most competitive period (since their glory days of course) was the period of time after penny-pincher Harold Ballard died up until the salary cap was introduced in 2005. The Leafs made 4 conference finals (and should have made 1 final in 1993 if not for Kerry Fraser) during that BRIEF period of time (1990-2005). If you consider that the lockout in 2004 wiped out the season, the Leafs had only 14 years to actually spend money and go for it. They did..... and it worked.

I never said the league wasn't profitable. All I'm talking about is tweaking maximum contract lengths. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. I'm trying to break the deadlock that the NHL currently has on player movement due to these albatross contract lengths that teams are forced to sign (in order to acquire the player that will make a difference) and then burn for afterwards for years and years. It's silly. Whatever happened to free agency?

Oh that'll happen regardless. Owners will make bad trades, bad draft picks, overpay for mediocre talent, etc. All I'm really saying is that the guaranteed contracts have gone too far. It was predictable that when the cap was introduced in 2005, owners would get around the cap by extending contract lengths. Whatever "variable" isn't capped is the one that expands to infinity. Cap the salary per year? Magically, contracts expand to 15-year deals overnight. Owners are forced to offer more term because otherwise the player signs elsewhere. It's the same situation as it was for annual salary. Highest annual pay wins, unless some other variable can factor in... and contract length is it. To me, the perfect player contract is to have 50% guaranteed (max 3-yr term) and the other 50% is paid based on performance bonuses (both team and individual performance). So if you want to be the highest paid player in the league, you would have to play like it, and your team would have to win. You wouldn't be able to get there from guaranteed contract money alone. Success would be rewarded, just like it is in the real world. Almost like the players are salespeople (selling the game) and they get paid a base salary + commission (performance bonus).

Agreed. My comparison is based on the fundamental principle of work for pay. The NHL and NHLPA have reminded us (constantly) that hockey is not a sport, it's a business. For nearly 75 years, fans were content with the idea that the players wanted to play hockey because they loved the game, and the money was an added bonus. Today, after some 25 years of conditioning, fans are the first ones to spew out terms like "asset", "value", "cap hit", "market appeal", "budget", "PR", "economic growth", "revenue streams" and so on. Nobody talks about the game any more, it's all about the economics of the game. Everyone is an MBA today instead of a fan. Fans have been conditioned to accept absurdity by the very product that they watch. It's like a drug dealer telling you how great drugs are... while injecting you. The idea of work for pay is that if do something of value for me, I'll give you something of value in return: $$$. Somehow, players have entered into a world of "pay forever, for work done at some point in the distant past". Why would I ever pay someone in perpetuity for work not yet performed? Or why would I pay top dollar in advance for inferior work performed later? I'd be happy to see the cap gone and replaced with a luxury tax. But I'd also like to see a cap on maximum contract length at 3 years, to save owners from themselves. We all know that owners will make stupid deals because they have to in order to sign the top players. That's how we got here. But at least the damage is minimized over a 3-year period and teams have the flexibility to get rid of bum players.

Now that the season is over, it's time to start looking at the first move the Leafs should make this offseason: Finding a new GM. With all due respect to Dubas, his biggest claim to fame is drafting Matthews at #1 with the lottery pick, and everyone was saying he should draft Matthews #1. Has there been a noteworthy trade or acquisition that Dubas has made to improve the Leafs since then? Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Pittsburgh Penguins acquire Jared McCann July 17, 2021 Filip Hallander 2023 7th round pick Pittsburgh Penguins acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Kasperi Kapanen Pontus Aberg Jesper Lindgren August 25, 2020 2020 1st round pick Evan Rodrigues Filip Hallander David Warsofsky Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Colorado Avalanche acquire Calle Rosen February 24, 2020 Michael Hutchinson Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date New York Islanders acquire Matt Lorito February 24, 2020 Jordan Schmaltz Vegas Golden Knights acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Martins Dzierkals February 24, 2020 2020 5th round pick Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Nashville Predators acquire Miikka Salomaki February 22, 2020 Ben Harpur Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Florida Panthers acquire Denis Malgin February 19, 2020 Mason Marchment Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Ottawa Senators acquire Max Veronneau February 19, 2020 Aaron Luchuk 2021 conditional 6th round pick Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Los Angeles Kings acquire Jack Campbell Kyle Clifford February 5, 2020 Trevor Moore 2020 3rd round pick 2021 conditional 3rd round pick Comment: The conditional third rounder in 2021 becomes a 2nd round pick if either Clifford re-signs with the Leafs OR Campbell wins a certain amount of games. Kings are guaranteed at least the 3rd Rd pick if neither of those conditions are met. Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date St. Louis Blues acquire Jordan Schmaltz July 25, 2019 Andreas Borgman Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Vegas Golden Knights acquire David Clarkson 2020 4th round pick July 23, 2019 Garret Sparks Ottawa Senators acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Nikita Zaitsev Connor Brown Michael Carcone July 1, 2019 Cody Ceci Ben Harpur Aaron Luchuk 2020 3rd round pick Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Colorado Avalanche acquire Tyson Barrie Alex Kerfoot 2020 6th round pick July 1, 2019 Nazem Kadri Calle Rosen 2020 3rd round pick Carolina Hurricanes acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Patrick Marleau 2020 conditional 1st round pick 2020 7th round pick June 22, 2019 2020 6th round pick Minnesota Wild acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Fedor Gordeev May 30, 2019 2020 7th round pick Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Winnipeg Jets acquire Nic Petan February 25, 2019 Par Lindholm Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Nashville Predators acquire Nick Baptiste February 24, 2019 Future considerations Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Los Angeles Kings acquire Jake Muzzin January 28, 2019 Carl Grundstrom Sean Durzi 2019 1st round pick Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Ottawa Senators acquire Gabriel Gagne January 11, 2019 Morgan Klimchuk Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Florida Panthers acquire Michael Hutchinson December 29, 2018 2020 5th round pick Anaheim Ducks acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Adam Cracknell December 11, 2018 Steven Oleksy Vancouver Canucks acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Josh Leivo December 3, 2018 Michael Carcone Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Date Calgary Flames acquire Morgan Klimchuk November 27, 2018 Andrew Nielsen Dallas Stars acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Connor Carrick October 1, 2018 2019 conditional 7th round pick New York Islanders acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Matt Martin July 3, 2018 Eamon McAdam Edmonton Oilers acquire Date Toronto Maple Leafs acquire Nolan Vesey June 8, 2018 2020 conditional 7th round pick I'm going to say Jack Campbell and Jack Muzzin might be the only good trade acquisitions. Am I missing anyone? Look at the list of "nothing" trades above. Those are the kinds of deals that squander Stanley Cups when a team's "Cup window" is open to win now.

The Leafs period of ineptitude coincides directly with his ownership of the team. They got bad immediately after he took over, and they didn't get good again until (surprise surprise) ~1992-93 after he died. The Leafs were one of hockey's most successful franchises on the ice during the period from Ballard's death until the salary cap was instituted in 2005. The documentary gives some good insight into what kind of person Ballard was.

Adrienne Clarkson profiles Harold Ballard, the then controversial co-owner of Maple Leaf Gardens and the Toronto Maple Leaf hockey team. In 1972 Ballard was convicted on charges of theft and fraud related to misappropriation of Maple Leafs Gardens funds, and was sentenced to 9 years in prison, ultimately serving one year in jail. Ballard owned the Leafs until his death at the age of 86 in 1990.

This would be preferred: (in my opinion)

True. Well said. I get squeemish. Yes but... The NHL isn't about setting players up for life financially. Never has been. The NHL is a place of employment for players to earn a living. Nowhere does it say that the league owes the players a lifetime of luxury just for making it into the league... nor should a player be granted a lifetime of luxury just for playing well a few seasons and landing their first big contract. It should be no different than any other job. You get paid while you're there and if terminated, that's it. You find another job (or career). The money should stop the moment the player's production stops. Injuries happen. If I worked as a roofer and fell off a roof, that might be the end of my working career. Worker's comp. would be my life going forward. If a player loses out on an NHL career due to injuries, that's too bad. That's part of the risk. Have a backup plan. Here is how NHL players perform versus how they currently get paid:

Too long. Ridiculously too long. The purpose of the guaranteed contract is to protect the player against injury. In a world without guaranteed contracts, players would be reluctant to take risks physically because an injury costs them money. A 1-year contract solves that problem. There's virtually no injury you can't heal from in a year. Players should be paid based on current performance, not past performance. Players should always be competing for a job in the NHL. If your performance drops off, you should be out of the league just as fast as you came in. Teams shouldn't be paying players not to play hockey. There are far too many of these long term deals where the players are being paid long after they're gone. It's silly. Pull back the reigns. 3-year contracts max. No more DiPietro's in this league. No more free ride. That's my money as a fan being wasted. The DATA might exist, but nobody has ever mined it to produce those STATISTICS, at least for external use. I'm certainly not going to because nobody is paying me to do it! I have to use anecdotal evidence and experience. Experience tells me that players plateau once they get the big contract and rarely ever do anything to outperform it. Best that most players can do is break-even.

Do you know why that is? Fans like dynasties. Fans like mismatches. Nothing is more boring (to the majority of fans) than parity. If all 32 teams are the same then nobody cares about anyone. If there is some "lobsided-ness" to the league, then you're excited when a "doormat" team comes to town so your team can pulverize them. You're also equally excited to see the "dynasty" team so that you see how your team stacks up against them. Parity robs the league of flavour and character. No matter how colorful the uniforms are, the on-ice product is just shades of grey. 10-15 years is absurd. The building phase of a typical expansion club under the old system is around 7 years to go from doormat to contender. Since every other team has to do it when they rebuild, I don't see what the problem is. The Leafs had to go from doormat to contender recently. It didn't happen overnight. They drafted and developed. Imagine if the Leafs could have said "you know, let's skip the rebuild and just pick players from every team". Much faster that way. It's hard to know where any team stands when every team is the same. You can't identify good until you've seen crap. That's the trouble in the NHL today. Everyone is the same. There are no good teams and there are no bad teams. Tampa is back-to-back champs, but on a scale of 1-10, they're maybe a 6/10 team compared to historical champion franchises. They would get swept by any champion from the 70's, 80's, 90's, early 2000's, because they have no depth. You can't "hoard" talent in the NHL today over multiple lines and that means weak/weakened champions. I like seeing two mega-powered teams collide in the final. I don't like when it's a matchup of two teams where anyone else could have been substituted in and the result would have been the same. If they are, would you acknowledge that the new system needs changing?

I'd mention that I'm in favour of abolishing guaranteed contracts. (Or setting a limit of maybe 3-5 years max.) But then people call me a slave driver and remind me of how much better the current system works by telling me all about players like DiPietro. I don't have statistics to prove it (because they don't exist).... but I'm convinced the majority (>50%) of players decline in performance after signing their first big money, long-term contract. Therefore, optimum player performance is achieved in the contract year prior to resigning a new contract, and if GMs were smart, they would part ways with the player in question at that moment in time and use the money to acquire the next big up and coming player at a discount price rather than max out their cap on a player that will be inclined to coast for the second half of their career.

I prefer the old system where expansion teams had to draft and build their way up to respectability. What occurred with Vegas was a farce, and an insult to fans of Cup-ready teams that an expansion team could appear out of nowhere and be contending for the Stanley Cup in season ONE by cherry picking the best unprotected players off each team's roster. I can see why Vegas and Seattle fans would be happy, but it doesn't work for everyone else. I'd love to flush the Leafs roster down the toilet and just steal the top players from all the other clubs in one fell swoop. That's a slam dunk. How can an expansion team screw this up? I mean really.

So how do you make the distinction between the Cleveland Indians logo and the Chicago Blackhawks logo then? Both logos show indians in traditional garb. The difference however, is that the Indians logo is childish and cartoony whereas the indian pictured in the Blackhawks logo looks mature, respectable, and distinguished. That's the only difference. I don't think anyone would object to the Cleveland Indians if the logo were restyled. I think people have a hard time recognizing what racism really is. People want to see racism everywhere, but racism (today) exists everywhere where people aren't looking for it. For example: Universities offering scholarships only to black people. That's racist. It's in plain sight, but nobody is talking about it. People can't see true racism, only "fake" racism. A guess that's a failing of mankind. The first time you go to an indian pow-wow (as I've done several times) and you see them all dressed up in traditional indian garb with the feathers, you'll see that the portrayal is accurate. It's not an exaggeration at all. Each indian team logo in sports is based on what indians consider to be their unique style. It wasn't imprinted on them by white people. It's not how we see them. It's how they see themselves. Do you realize that as a child, my favourite logos in baseball were: Indians (loved the bright red color and the picture) Pirates (loved the badass looking pirate) Jays (obviously) There is no malice in honoring the tradition of a particular race of people. I disagree 100%. It's no more racist than calling a white person white or a black person black. For some reason it has become culturally acceptable to call caucasian people "white" and not get called a racist. Similarly, we're allowed to call African-American people "black" and not get labelled as racist. What makes indians (and quite frankly asians as well) superior to the rest of us that they're too good to be assigned a skin color as a label? The term "chink" and "****" is a deragatory name similar to "cracker" or using the "N-word". It's not the same thing as calling someone by a color. Do you not see the inconsistency here: White Black Asian Indian (Two of the above are not colors.) How about if I drew a map and labelled it: Europe Africa Yellow land Red land So once again, why do Asian people and Indian people manage to escape being assigned a skin COLOR as a label in our society? Why is it racist to "colorize" one group and not another? Why is it okay for indians to refer to us as "the white man"? Again, that's the real racism that exists in the world today. Applying a different standard of treatment to different groups of people. In this case, white people and black people apparently have less rights. We're just colors. Everyone else is something more than a color. Everyone else has a unique name or place of origin tied into their ethnic label. Would you object to the name if the team was called the Washington Reds?

One of the problems with the game today is that I believe GMs often OVERTHINK things when the obvious decision is staring right at them. I think many modern GMs spend too much time looking at "advanced stats" and not enough time looking at the basics. It's not that hard. Analyze the core stats. Analyze the player's track record (ie: playoff success, leadership positions on previous teams, etc). Analyze the cap space available and how much you can afford to ALLOCATE to a given position. We've been 15+ years into salary cap land in the NHL and I've never seen a GM make the ultimate "cap trade" yet: Trade the HIGHEST PAID (and BEST) player on your team for 2-3 guys (each making 1/2 or 1/3 the salary) who are 2nd line/secondary scoring type depth players. If you rolled out a team that was three lines deep of 2nd line players, that would be the most potent NHL team you could construct in a cap era. (Law of Diminishing Returns.) Blowing everything on ONE line (just to have the best player at a given position) and then filling in with crap around the edges does not make for a strong team. The current NHL model is to have a 10/10 line 1, a 5/10 line 2, a 3/10 line 3, and a 1/10 line 4. My model would be to have a 8/10 line 1, 8/10 line 2, 8/10 line 3, and a 1/10 line 4. And I bet you I could achieve that within the constraints of a salary cap system.

Always curious why people dodge discussion when they hear a different point of view. The definition of the word racism is: To insult, belittle, demean, devalue, or disadvantage an individual or a group of individuals based on their ethnicity/race. To apply a different standard of treatment to an individual or a group of individuals based solely on their ethnicity/race. The Cleveland Indians are not a racist baseball team. The only thing that a person could ever object to is the cartoonish depiction of an indian in the logo, and even that is a stretch since the logo isn't intended to be realistic. It is indeed meant to be cartoony and as such, the features of the indian in the logo are exaggerated. Remember that baseball appeals to KIDS first and foremost. Also, the name "indian" is the correct term. If you don't believe me, view your government's website and it'll back up my claim. We recently had a Census in Canada and one of the questions asks: "Are you a Status Indian or a Treaty Indian?" That's on the Canada Census and if it's good enough for the Government of Canada it's good enough for me. People need to stop IMAGINING racism. It's not that it doesn't exist..... it's that nobody knows what it is any more.

How was Barrie used improperly in Toronto? He was playing on an all-offence, no-defence team with a star-studded group of forwards. Face it, the guy just sucked in Toronto (like so many players do when the spotlight is on them). A mistake to get rid of Kapanen, especially for a draft pick. The Leafs needed someone who could play now. I mentioned that one too last season when I suggested the Leafs deal him to Philly for Phil Myers, and everyone shat on that idea. I remember mentioning Ceci's defensive prowess on the Leafs many times and everyone sh_t on it. I think perhaps it's time to subtract Dubas and add ME as the GM of the Leafs.

And technically, that term offends people like me. I am native to Canada because I was born here. So was my mom, my grandparents, my great grandparents, etc. A native (by definition) is anyone BORN in the country in which they reside. The opposite of a native is an immigrant, and I am not an immigrant. The timeline for "immigrant status" begins and ends with the person in question and their lifetime, not their ancestors. But I digress.... trying to avoid politics.

I don't put much stock in what "offends" people because everything offends someone. I analyzed each of the big four sports teams named after indians and here's what I found: Washington Redskins (analogous to calling white people "white", black people "black", and asian people "yellow", hard to see the racism here) Atlanta Braves (the name is not racist, and the tomahawk chop is accurate) Cleveland Indians (the term "indian" is the proper term, therefore not racist) Chicago Blackhawks (named after a famous indian, also not racist) Who am I missing? All in all, I flip the question and ask: If a team was named the Washington Whiteskins, would any white people object? (Keeping in mind that all of these sports team HONOR the people represented in the logo. So if you took a picture of a white soldier bravely going into combat and called it the Whiteskins I'd be perfectly fine with that.) For something to be racist, it has to be done in a defamatory way. If you're doing it merely to label a group of people for the purposes of identification, it's not racism. If your team is a tribute to a group of people, it's not racism.

Why can't they call them the Washington Redskins? Is that not analogous to calling a team the Black Panthers or the White Knights?

I think the Leafs need to go the route of the Boston Red Sox. For a loooooooooooooooong time, the Red Sox hadn't won anything. Then, they ended the drought and started winning. Now they're one of baseball's most successful modern franchises. I'd like to see the Leafs follow in the footsteps of the Red Sox and become the NHL's most successful modern franchise. A team that wins all the time.

Were you home schooled? The Leafs have won 13 Cups. The NHL has played 104 seasons. 104 / 13 = 8 The Leafs average one Stanley Cup every 8 years.

Only blue and white. LOL. Had the Nordiques won, that would have counted as well.

Indeed. Must be nice. Detroit and Montreal called and they say (cough) "BS" (cough). Until Tampa won I had never seen a team in blue and white win the Stanley Cup before. I'm pretty sure the NHL never has either because the Leafs last win predates color television. (Yes, it's ALWAYS about the Leafs lol. Whenever I can shoe-horn it in there lol.)

Well it was literally the #1 seed versus the #16 seed. Tampa were the defending champs and regarded as the team to beat. Montreal was seen as the team that didn't belong in the playoffs.