Brian Burke will not go to Toronto this year. So says TSN, Burke, Ducks CEO Mike (don't call me Dan) Schulman, and presumably owner Henry Samueli. Unless the Leafs want to let Cliff Fletcher drive the Leafs' little schoolbus for the next year, at which point Burke's contract will be up (barring an extension), another name will have to be drawn out of a hat. Also, the Leafland media is gradually coming to the realization that the Leafs GM position is perhaps not the equivalent of Guy Who Counts Roomfull Of Cash Because Nobody Knows How Much Is In There job, and publicly offering up said job will probably not bring Ken Holland, Lou Lamoriello or Bob Gainey racing their Segways to the MLSE offices, slapping and shoving each other up the escalator, jamming papers back into their briefcases while simultaneously shouting their names to Richard Peddie's secretary.
I'll pause while you enjoy that image.
Right then. So with none of those candidates interested and/or available, who are the most likely candidates for the Leafs job? I can't seem to find anyone in my usual website roundabout willing to write loud, boisterous columbs, no bold predictions or top 150 candidates for Who Should Run This Crappy Team. Even TSN, with a hockey staff roughly the size of the old Stasi, just keeps churning out the same stories about Brian Burke's status with the Ducks. Sure you hear lots of names thrown around, but nobody's willing to make blind foolish predictions. That won't do. So, as a public service, I'll submit to you the Loyal Reader my list of options for the Leafs GM position.
1. Colin Campbell
2. Doug Armstrong
3. Neil Smith
That's it. This isn't the Vancouver Canucks or Sacramento Bumwads, this is the New York Yankess of the NHL. As many have correctly stated, this team doesn't need to take chances with new candidates, bright young up-and-comers or former player agents. No sir. If you're the Leafs, you go out and buy the best name. If he fails, go buy the next best name, and so forth. The salary cap only serves to increase MLSE's profits and since it has no effect on management salaries, there's no reason to shop Zellers when you can peruse Harrod's instead. These three are are the best available, have the most experience, good media skills and the high profile necessary to front the biggest hockey market in the NHL. I don't know how you qualify "biggest," there's a few U.S. markets that dwarf Toronto of course, but between the large southern Ontario population and the large capacity on the back of the bandwagon, I think it's a safe bet that the Leafs have the largest, if most lethargic, apathetic and delightfully unhappy, fanbase.
The best of these candidates is Doug Armstrong, former assistant GM and GM of the Dallas Stars who, with the exception of the Brad Richards trade made at this year's trade deadline, was responsible for building a perennial division and conference challenger. Since 2002-2003 the team has averaged 104.8 points per season, won a Stanley Cup in 1999 with Armstrong as Assistant GM, and hired Dave Tippett who, in five seasons, has compiled a 235-121-28-26 regular season record. He was fired following a bad loss to Los Angeles last November, a loss for which he, as GM, was entirely responsible and should have been able to personally prevent.
Neil Smith won a Stanley Cup in 1994 with the Rangers, he's used to big media, used to a corporate atmosphere but is a second choice. He hasn't been a GM since 2000 (not counting his six week tenure for the Islanders) and may be viewed as a consolation prize.
My prediction is that despite Armstrong's rep, Colin Campbell will get the job. He's an ex-league disciplinarian, like Brian Burke, and has seemingly wanted the Leafs job for a while since he turned down the Flyers GM job in November 2006. Assuming that's true, he comes in motivated and perfectly able to handle the Leaf media, since as the NHL's sheriff he's faced FAR tougher questions than whether Jiri Tlusty is really a long-term solution. I imagine after years in a pretty thankless job he'd love to run the Leafs, though not having a Stanley Cup or NHL GM experience won't be in his favor. Richard Peddie was pretty clear, he wanted a guy with a Stanley Cup and long-term experience, so that would appear to erase Campbell's chances entirely. Still, I can't see them going with a successful though still relatively unknown Armstrong or lack of any recent success Smith so my guess, which is not an argument for or against, is Campbell.
The other thing that I keep thinking about is the league's suspension and discipline policies. Campbell was unwilling to make any bold statements or set precedents when given the opportunity by Chris Pronger this year. The league, rightfully so, is being hammered from all sides about its inability to make consistent suspension decisions and create any kind of meaningful standards. Matthieu Schneider said today on Bob McCown's radio show that he was unimpressed with the inconsistency shown in the Chris Simon and Chris Pronger suspensions, NHLPA head Paul Kelly endorsed the idea of having specific guidelines for suspensions rather than treating each incident in a vacuum and fans, goaded by the media, are growing increasingly frustrated with with the seemingly random, out-of-a-hat method of deciding the length of suspensions and amount of fines. This would appear to be the ideal time to make a regime change and implement some of the many player, management and league suggestions. It's perfect, Campbell gets the job he wants, the league brings in a few face to restructure the rules and utopia arrives. Pretty hard to make any substantial guesses without much inside information, but it's very easy to make foolish, unaccountable ones.
So my reasons aren't very good but it's not about reasons, it's about who's right. Look, I've won my playoff hockey pool two or maybe three years in a row, so I think I know how to hire an NHL General Manager. If they hire Campbell I'm not sure how they spin their flip-flop as they seemed pretty determined to get a Stanley Cup winning GM. Ultimately it's foolish to make any predictions, nobody knows anything about the process or how they're interviewing. Still, with the draft on June 20th and free agency starting July 1st, you'd think they'd want somebody on the job in the next month or so and therefore you'd hear more rumors and news. There are long-term decisions to be made this summer; this isn't dumping veterans for prospects at the deadline. Fletcher made the deadline deals he could to "set the table," as he said, for the next GM. You can't let him make the upcoming long-term team decisions unless he's going to be around long-term, otherwise you handcuff the new guy.
In writing this I realize why there aren't many articles out there listing the Top 5 Leaf GM candidates, and instead lots of just general name throwing. One reason seems to be that it's possible the Leafs have truly sealed off any leaks and nobody knows anything. That was no more on display than with the Brian Burke predictions, saying he was the first choice, his negotiations with the Ducks were unclear, and that he was leaving the door open to take the Leafs job. Burke has been the number one rumor since John Ferguson Jr. was fired, despite all his rantings to the contrary (Brian Burke does not speak, he RANTS. "...and would you like fries or salad?" "THIS OFFER IS AN ACT OF DESPERATION FROM A SERVER TRYING TO SAVE HER JOB. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE OFFERED A GROSSLY INFLATED NUMBER OF SIDE CHOICES." Here's the original article the Burke Rant Template comes from), and there really hasn't been a strong second choice to rumor over. In theory then it should be pretty quiet until the decision is made, what with the ability of the MLSE board to keep quiet, at least in this matter.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Round 2: DING!!!
Over the last four days in Edmonton, a lot of snow has fallen. Estimates range from the conservative (16 cm) to the accurate (16 billion jillion cm). In Prince George, previous home of Sporticourse (before it existed, but whose destiny lay forward...), there was a lot more snow. Annually, Prince George would receive between 1 and 100 billion jillion katillion cm of snow. The difference is that in Prince George, as a result of being a smaller, more boring town stocked sky-high with individuals whose sole skill is to operate heavy machinery, actually will plow a street now and then. The City of Edmonton's road map is unlike the one you'll find on Google or Mapquest; it only shows freeways, bus routes, and rich neighbourhoods. Those get plowed, but anything upper-middle class or less gets you a big one of these. As a result, Prince George may get more snowfall but Edmonton receives a far higher volume of Actual Snow and Slush (the A.S.S. volume). In other words, one week after wearing shorts and promenading (like walking, only with Lululemons) the river valley, baseball interest=shot and playoff hockey interest resumes!
A very nice first round, though had Washington coverted any of their 16 third period shots in last night's game seven, my hockey pool would have a real smooth veneer to compliment a single rough edge (picking the Rangers in seven; thought Brodeur could push it at least that far). The second round looks fantastic, despite that interest begins to wane by now with warmer weather and only American teams remaining. With only one of those still true this year, the second round will be far more watchable, especially considering these reasons:
Detroit vs. Colorado
Hockey's best non-traditional rivalry is renewed and with much of the original cast from the late 1990's, at least for Colorado. The Avs bring back Adam Foote and Peter Forsberg to compliment Joe Sakic and Milan Hejduk, while Ryan Smyth, Jose Theodore, Andrew Brunette, John-Michael Liles and Scott Hannan will enjoy their first taste of the famed rivalry. For Detroit Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Tomas Holmstrom, Niklas Lindstrom and the surprising Johan Franzen and Jiri Hudler will look to pick up where they left off against Nashville.
That's my best impression of the bland, uninsightful series summaries you have to read this time of year. It's that or worse: the overbaring, unnecessarily loud opinionated shrieking from TSN's panel. THIS TEAM IS SOFT THEY CAN'T WIN. YES THEY CAN THEY ARE SOOOOO GREAT. YOU WERE ONCE A MEDIOCRE BACKUP. HAHAHAHA. (repeat for each team analysis).
Detroit's goaltending looked shaky last round but they had the puck the whole series so they made it through. Colorado was outshot in every game against the Wild and thus looks comfortable playing a containment-style defense against Detroit, who will stick with their puck-control style. Colorado has the better goalie and more playoff-proven offensive depth, so I go with them in 7.
San Jose vs. Dallas
Both teams came out of grueling first-round series playing two very physical teams. This series should be a little more skillful and thus would appear to favor San Jose, though Dallas won the season series. Well, sort of, going 4-2-2. Sharks looked great at times against Calgary, a very tough team to ever look good against, have the better goalie (Nabokov, just nominated for the Vezina), the best forward (Joe Thornton) and the best defenseman (Brian Campbell). I didn't get to watch much of the Dallas-Anaheim series but of beating the defending champion Ducks you'd have to say, in the words of the record executive in Guitar-Queer-O, "That's pretty goddamn impressive." Still, Sharks in 6.
Montreal vs. Philadelphia
Montreal has a rookie goalie with an A+ ceiling while Philly has a proven goalie with a B+ ceiling. Biron held pretty steady though seven games against Washington, while Carey Price had a meltdown in game 5 and let in another 5 goals in game 6. In the other five games he only let in five goals though, so he can match up with anybody when he's playing well. Montreal has more scoring while Philly is more physical. Both teams are coming off seven-game series but while Montreal looks like a team who'll be stronger after overcoming the underdog Bruins, the Flyers could be worn out after a really tough series fighting off Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom and Green. Montreal in 6.
Pittsburgh vs. NY Rangers
This is a toss-up. Stingy defense, great goaltending and enough scoring against WAY more than enough scoring, an underrated defense and a young goalie who was excellent against the Senators. It's really only because of Montreal's youth and inexperience, but I say both the Rangers and Penguins are the Eastern Conference frontrunners for the Cup. At this point I'd say that the winner here goes to the Finals, though I might retract in a few weeks. This series to me is like the Carey Price-Martin Biron matchup. You know what you'll get from the Rangers but Pittsburgh has the better top-end talent and thus the higher ceiling. I'll go with the ceiling; Penguins in 6.
These are the same picks as I made in my hockey pool, of which I am one point back of the top spot. I've won the last two years (or three, can't remember, that will probably be corrected in the comments section soon enough) so the pressure's on since I'm due to fall off this year. There really isn't a series that you try to avoid, no Minnesota, Boston or Calgary anymore. All these teams are legit and feature real superstars. There's even some old rivalries renewed, not just Detroit-Colorado but Montreal-Philly and Pittsburgh-New York. Should be fun.
A very nice first round, though had Washington coverted any of their 16 third period shots in last night's game seven, my hockey pool would have a real smooth veneer to compliment a single rough edge (picking the Rangers in seven; thought Brodeur could push it at least that far). The second round looks fantastic, despite that interest begins to wane by now with warmer weather and only American teams remaining. With only one of those still true this year, the second round will be far more watchable, especially considering these reasons:
Detroit vs. Colorado
Hockey's best non-traditional rivalry is renewed and with much of the original cast from the late 1990's, at least for Colorado. The Avs bring back Adam Foote and Peter Forsberg to compliment Joe Sakic and Milan Hejduk, while Ryan Smyth, Jose Theodore, Andrew Brunette, John-Michael Liles and Scott Hannan will enjoy their first taste of the famed rivalry. For Detroit Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Tomas Holmstrom, Niklas Lindstrom and the surprising Johan Franzen and Jiri Hudler will look to pick up where they left off against Nashville.
That's my best impression of the bland, uninsightful series summaries you have to read this time of year. It's that or worse: the overbaring, unnecessarily loud opinionated shrieking from TSN's panel. THIS TEAM IS SOFT THEY CAN'T WIN. YES THEY CAN THEY ARE SOOOOO GREAT. YOU WERE ONCE A MEDIOCRE BACKUP. HAHAHAHA. (repeat for each team analysis).
Detroit's goaltending looked shaky last round but they had the puck the whole series so they made it through. Colorado was outshot in every game against the Wild and thus looks comfortable playing a containment-style defense against Detroit, who will stick with their puck-control style. Colorado has the better goalie and more playoff-proven offensive depth, so I go with them in 7.
San Jose vs. Dallas
Both teams came out of grueling first-round series playing two very physical teams. This series should be a little more skillful and thus would appear to favor San Jose, though Dallas won the season series. Well, sort of, going 4-2-2. Sharks looked great at times against Calgary, a very tough team to ever look good against, have the better goalie (Nabokov, just nominated for the Vezina), the best forward (Joe Thornton) and the best defenseman (Brian Campbell). I didn't get to watch much of the Dallas-Anaheim series but of beating the defending champion Ducks you'd have to say, in the words of the record executive in Guitar-Queer-O, "That's pretty goddamn impressive." Still, Sharks in 6.
Montreal vs. Philadelphia
Montreal has a rookie goalie with an A+ ceiling while Philly has a proven goalie with a B+ ceiling. Biron held pretty steady though seven games against Washington, while Carey Price had a meltdown in game 5 and let in another 5 goals in game 6. In the other five games he only let in five goals though, so he can match up with anybody when he's playing well. Montreal has more scoring while Philly is more physical. Both teams are coming off seven-game series but while Montreal looks like a team who'll be stronger after overcoming the underdog Bruins, the Flyers could be worn out after a really tough series fighting off Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom and Green. Montreal in 6.
Pittsburgh vs. NY Rangers
This is a toss-up. Stingy defense, great goaltending and enough scoring against WAY more than enough scoring, an underrated defense and a young goalie who was excellent against the Senators. It's really only because of Montreal's youth and inexperience, but I say both the Rangers and Penguins are the Eastern Conference frontrunners for the Cup. At this point I'd say that the winner here goes to the Finals, though I might retract in a few weeks. This series to me is like the Carey Price-Martin Biron matchup. You know what you'll get from the Rangers but Pittsburgh has the better top-end talent and thus the higher ceiling. I'll go with the ceiling; Penguins in 6.
These are the same picks as I made in my hockey pool, of which I am one point back of the top spot. I've won the last two years (or three, can't remember, that will probably be corrected in the comments section soon enough) so the pressure's on since I'm due to fall off this year. There really isn't a series that you try to avoid, no Minnesota, Boston or Calgary anymore. All these teams are legit and feature real superstars. There's even some old rivalries renewed, not just Detroit-Colorado but Montreal-Philly and Pittsburgh-New York. Should be fun.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Dave Nonis fired!
...a few days ago. So the shock has subsided somewhat, though the arguments for and against (mostly against) have remained pretty boisterous. Deserved or not? Here's a quick look at Dave Nonis in Vancouver:
The Good:
-Traded for Roberto Luongo. This could be the whole list frankly, because this was a trade where, right after I heard it, thought holy GOD, that's an incredible steal for Vancouver. This was when Bertuzzi was still considered an elite player, albeit one who needed out of Vancouver after SteveMooregate and probably starting his decline. Still, playing with Olie Jokinen in Florida I still figured him for 30-40 goals in what was still being called the "New NHL." WELL. Bertuzzi hardly played the following year due to injury, only 8 games for Florida, and was traded to Detroit for promising prospect (and future Canadian World Junior hero) Shawn Matthias and some conditional picks. Vancouver, with Luongo signed to a long-term contract, would win the division, set a team record for points and went to the second round of the playoffs. Luongo set team records for wins, shutouts, shutout streak, saves in a single game, and save percentage while finishing second in Vezina, Hart, and Pearson trophy voting. It's already considered, after just two years, one of the most lopsided trades in NHL history. The other players in the deal cancel themselves out, in my mind.
-What, more? That's not enough for you? Guess you're qualified to own the Canucks. Okay then, he also managed to dump Dan Cloutier to Los Angeles after acquiring Luongo, signed Willie Mitchell (the next Canuck captain?), replaced Marc Crawford with subsequent Coach of the Year Alan Vigneault, and currently has the team set up with lots of room under the salary cap with which to pursue desperately needed scoring. In other words, the team has the NHL's best goalie, excellent defensive depth, and money to spend on goal-scoring.
The Bad:
-Missed the playoffs two of the last three years.
-A team on the rise clearly took a step backwards after winning the division last year.
-Failed to acquire scoring at the deadline, with the rumored Brad Richards-for-a-LOT deal not going through.
-Um. That's all I can think of. He only had the job three years. Go read the Stupid Draft Analysis From Hell I did a while ago for his draft record.
Addressing The Bad:
-Yes, they missed the playoffs two of the last three years but last year they won the friggin' DIVISION. A very, very tough division no less. The year before that they barely missed out despite having more wins than powerhouse and Finals-bound Edmonton, so nothing to be ashamed of. Still, in 2005-2006 they were considered a Cup favorite and missing the playoffs was certainly unexpected, but most GMs get a few years on the job before you hold them accountable. They're also not judged on their first seasons either since that's when they're still using the old regime's players and staff. True, Nonis was the Assistant GM but he wasn't the Boss, as nobody could be under Brian Burke. You do what you're told or YOU'LL BE YELLED AT LOUDLY. Gms aren't coaches, they aren't judged year-to-year and generally get at least five years to show results. You can also add in that a season after a lockout is going to be more prone to fluxuations and unpredictability than a normal season, especially considering the many rule changes. So one write-off season, one division title, and...
-Yes, the team took a step back in 2007-2008 but look at this: Sami Salo missed 19 games (that's their powerplay right there), Aaron Miller missed 25, Mattias Ohlund 29, Brenden Morrison 43, Kevin Bieksa 48, and Lukas Krajicek 43. That's a stunning amount of injuries and except for Morrison, all to defenseman. Missing the playoffs this past season was certainly a disappointment, especially after leading the division at one point, but you could make the argument they were lucky to have any shot at all.
-Just to counter-point myself, despite all those injuries to the defense they still finished 6th best in the NHL in total goals against. So there wasn't much better they could have been defensively had they been healthy.
-Counter-counter-point: Yeah, but they would have had more goal scoring from the defense, especially from Salo, which would have made a difference.
-The Richards trade. Click that link and read where Darren Dreger says the proposed deal was for Cory Schneider (their top goalie prospect), Luc Bourdon (top defense prospect, arguably), and a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. That seems like a monster price to pay for a very good player to be sure, but also one with a $7.8 million contract and only 62 points by the time the season was over. That's a big chunk of the cap gone, as well as two good prospects and three draft picks when $7.8 million this summer might get you Marian Hossa. If that was the price then that's an excellent trade not made.
-Counter-point: I realize that Bourdon has tailed off in his development (not exactly the next Dion Phaneuf, as some had hoped) and Schneider won't play in Vancouver maybe ever because of Luongo. These are definitely tradeable prospects then, not keepers, but if you can keep them for another trade while spending your $7.8 million somewhere else this off-season, that's a smarter deal to me.
I know that new ownership often means new personnel and that's probably why Nonis was fired. New owners like their own guys and a fresh start. If you weren't sure about Nonis, you wouldn't want him taking this team forward at a point where they have so much cap room and flexibility. Even when a new GM comes in the coach doesn't usually last (not that they last long anyways), so from this angle it wasn't unexpected. Here's the thing though: you don't actually HAVE to fire them. When Brian Colangelo took over the Toronto Raptors, he took over a mess of a team with a coach who'd been voted the worst in the NBA. Colangelo ripped apart the roster but decided to keep Sam Mitchell as coach and the team would win the division and Mitchell Coach of the Year. These intact transitions can be done with success. If you look at Dave Nonis' record, this is a terrible decision. It would be one thing if the official reason from owner Francesco Aquilini had simply been "We want our own guy," but to blame it on missing the playoffs (and implicitly on Nonis' record) is foolish, ignorant, and a bad sign of things to come for Canuck fans. Maybe he hires Doug Armstrong or Neil Smith and stays the hell out of their way, but hiding behind this idiotic rhetoric is pretty underwhelming.
Nonis to the Leafs? Naw, they'll put Dougie in there.
The Good:
-Traded for Roberto Luongo. This could be the whole list frankly, because this was a trade where, right after I heard it, thought holy GOD, that's an incredible steal for Vancouver. This was when Bertuzzi was still considered an elite player, albeit one who needed out of Vancouver after SteveMooregate and probably starting his decline. Still, playing with Olie Jokinen in Florida I still figured him for 30-40 goals in what was still being called the "New NHL." WELL. Bertuzzi hardly played the following year due to injury, only 8 games for Florida, and was traded to Detroit for promising prospect (and future Canadian World Junior hero) Shawn Matthias and some conditional picks. Vancouver, with Luongo signed to a long-term contract, would win the division, set a team record for points and went to the second round of the playoffs. Luongo set team records for wins, shutouts, shutout streak, saves in a single game, and save percentage while finishing second in Vezina, Hart, and Pearson trophy voting. It's already considered, after just two years, one of the most lopsided trades in NHL history. The other players in the deal cancel themselves out, in my mind.
-What, more? That's not enough for you? Guess you're qualified to own the Canucks. Okay then, he also managed to dump Dan Cloutier to Los Angeles after acquiring Luongo, signed Willie Mitchell (the next Canuck captain?), replaced Marc Crawford with subsequent Coach of the Year Alan Vigneault, and currently has the team set up with lots of room under the salary cap with which to pursue desperately needed scoring. In other words, the team has the NHL's best goalie, excellent defensive depth, and money to spend on goal-scoring.
The Bad:
-Missed the playoffs two of the last three years.
-A team on the rise clearly took a step backwards after winning the division last year.
-Failed to acquire scoring at the deadline, with the rumored Brad Richards-for-a-LOT deal not going through.
-Um. That's all I can think of. He only had the job three years. Go read the Stupid Draft Analysis From Hell I did a while ago for his draft record.
Addressing The Bad:
-Yes, they missed the playoffs two of the last three years but last year they won the friggin' DIVISION. A very, very tough division no less. The year before that they barely missed out despite having more wins than powerhouse and Finals-bound Edmonton, so nothing to be ashamed of. Still, in 2005-2006 they were considered a Cup favorite and missing the playoffs was certainly unexpected, but most GMs get a few years on the job before you hold them accountable. They're also not judged on their first seasons either since that's when they're still using the old regime's players and staff. True, Nonis was the Assistant GM but he wasn't the Boss, as nobody could be under Brian Burke. You do what you're told or YOU'LL BE YELLED AT LOUDLY. Gms aren't coaches, they aren't judged year-to-year and generally get at least five years to show results. You can also add in that a season after a lockout is going to be more prone to fluxuations and unpredictability than a normal season, especially considering the many rule changes. So one write-off season, one division title, and...
-Yes, the team took a step back in 2007-2008 but look at this: Sami Salo missed 19 games (that's their powerplay right there), Aaron Miller missed 25, Mattias Ohlund 29, Brenden Morrison 43, Kevin Bieksa 48, and Lukas Krajicek 43. That's a stunning amount of injuries and except for Morrison, all to defenseman. Missing the playoffs this past season was certainly a disappointment, especially after leading the division at one point, but you could make the argument they were lucky to have any shot at all.
-Just to counter-point myself, despite all those injuries to the defense they still finished 6th best in the NHL in total goals against. So there wasn't much better they could have been defensively had they been healthy.
-Counter-counter-point: Yeah, but they would have had more goal scoring from the defense, especially from Salo, which would have made a difference.
-The Richards trade. Click that link and read where Darren Dreger says the proposed deal was for Cory Schneider (their top goalie prospect), Luc Bourdon (top defense prospect, arguably), and a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. That seems like a monster price to pay for a very good player to be sure, but also one with a $7.8 million contract and only 62 points by the time the season was over. That's a big chunk of the cap gone, as well as two good prospects and three draft picks when $7.8 million this summer might get you Marian Hossa. If that was the price then that's an excellent trade not made.
-Counter-point: I realize that Bourdon has tailed off in his development (not exactly the next Dion Phaneuf, as some had hoped) and Schneider won't play in Vancouver maybe ever because of Luongo. These are definitely tradeable prospects then, not keepers, but if you can keep them for another trade while spending your $7.8 million somewhere else this off-season, that's a smarter deal to me.
I know that new ownership often means new personnel and that's probably why Nonis was fired. New owners like their own guys and a fresh start. If you weren't sure about Nonis, you wouldn't want him taking this team forward at a point where they have so much cap room and flexibility. Even when a new GM comes in the coach doesn't usually last (not that they last long anyways), so from this angle it wasn't unexpected. Here's the thing though: you don't actually HAVE to fire them. When Brian Colangelo took over the Toronto Raptors, he took over a mess of a team with a coach who'd been voted the worst in the NBA. Colangelo ripped apart the roster but decided to keep Sam Mitchell as coach and the team would win the division and Mitchell Coach of the Year. These intact transitions can be done with success. If you look at Dave Nonis' record, this is a terrible decision. It would be one thing if the official reason from owner Francesco Aquilini had simply been "We want our own guy," but to blame it on missing the playoffs (and implicitly on Nonis' record) is foolish, ignorant, and a bad sign of things to come for Canuck fans. Maybe he hires Doug Armstrong or Neil Smith and stays the hell out of their way, but hiding behind this idiotic rhetoric is pretty underwhelming.
Nonis to the Leafs? Naw, they'll put Dougie in there.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Jose at the Bat
Like most baseball fans, who watch the game from a distance and don't know any players or have much inside information, I don't know what to think about Jose Canseco. These days when one thinks of Canseco, steroid scandal and "author" come to mind. If you take another few minutes, you might think first 40 homer, 40 steals season, 1986 Rookie of the Year, Simpsons guest star, and producer of maybe the greatest baseball blooper of all time. When I read his first book on the plane ride back from Mexico (a four hour trip, still left lots of time to read the paper), I enjoyed it. What I mean, of course, is that I enjoyed it the way a parent enjoys their kid's first drawing on the fridge: with a cheerfully exaggerated "GOOD FOR YOU!" It's disorganized, simplistic and lacks anything resembling style or elegance. Yet it does satisfy one's voyeuristic indulgence, as any fan living far away from any baseball team will undoubtedly have, and holds nothing back when discussing baseball's steroid use, as names and teams are thrown around with ridiculous abandon. So that's pretty entertaining.
I finished reading a great article on Canseco that further complicated my impression of him. He's a polarizing figure to say the least. A bad writer who wrote, arguably, the most important book in triggering baseball's steroid catharsis. A cheerful, engaging, regular-guy personality but, according to Pat Jordan's article, regularly failed to show at charity events. In his own book, Canseco re-tells a number of well-publicized events in his personal life, always blaming someone else, portraying events as wrongly presented or exaggerated in the media, or just dismissing them as irrelevant. Jordan's article creates a figure who is lazy, foolish, irresponsible, lacks foresight, and is constantly in need of structure imposed upon him. He thinks he's misunderstood, Jordan implies he isn't. I don't know what to think.
As a player, Canseco was pretty much everything you watch sports for. Big, fast, powerful, everything he did was done with excess and spectacle. No short home runs that scraped the back of the outfield fence. In his prime, he was the best combination of power and speed in the game, the first 40-40 player of course, but also a player who could give fans those Bo Jackson kinds of visuals. The upper-deck home run at the Skydome, flexing his biceps at Red Sox fans chanting "steroids," the bodybuilder physique, the dalliances with Madonna and bloopers, like the one above, that simply could not have been done by anyone else. I liked Canseco in 1998 with Toronto, he had a really good year with 46 homers and 107 RBI's but of course was overshadowed by McGwire and Sosa chasing the home run record. He hit some very, very long homers, stole 29 bases (BUT that's in 46 attempts, a 63% success rate which = ew) and arguably had his best season since 1991. After 1998 he was injured, which was a common theme for most of his career, why he only played an average of 99 games from 1992-1997, and why he was basically finished as an impact player after 1999.
Injuries help contribute to any player's legend, whether Bo Jackson, Sandy Koufax, Bobby Orr or Bill Walton. With Canseco, the injuries seem to have hurt his legacy since they were attributed to his steroid use, a debatable contention. I think that's unfortunate and shows a bias against Canseco, since he certainly is not receiving the same proportional adulation ascribed to his fellow Tragically Injured. Last year he only received 6 Hall of Fame votes, or 1.1%, and less than the 5% necessary to remain on the ballot for another year. This for a player with careers numbers of 462 HRs (31st all-time, more than HOFers Carl Yastrzemski, Duke Snider and Al Kaline), 1407 RBI's (63rd all-time, more than HOFers Robin Yount and Joe Medwick), AVG/OBP/SLG of .266/.353/.515. This isn't an essay to get Jose Canseco into the Hall of Fame, his career wasn't that good, just a point that he was swept away pretty quickly for a high-impact player. Clearly, his career numbers were overshadowed by his cartoony persona and current steroid association. Maybe his NHL comparable would be Eric Lindros, just not impactful (not a real word, but a sports word) long enough. That would be an interesting stat analysis for another day...
These are the endless circles you run around in when you talk about Jose Canseco. I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame but do think he should have generated more debate. His career is rightly degraded because of his admitted continuous steroid use, yet with no rules against steroids at the time it's hard to hold him as accountable as an athlete caught today. His terribly bad book ratted out former teammates and friends for the sake of making money and raising his own profile, yet he was the only person to bravely (I guess) speak out and draw attention to the extent of the problem. You can't dismiss him as a loony toon, even though he is, because of how important he's become to baseball in the last few years. You also can't give him any credit because it seems like he did it accidental, that highlighting baseball's culture of PED's was a bemusing side note while he made a few bucks. I guess what you can do is write blog entries and throw up your hands.
I finished reading a great article on Canseco that further complicated my impression of him. He's a polarizing figure to say the least. A bad writer who wrote, arguably, the most important book in triggering baseball's steroid catharsis. A cheerful, engaging, regular-guy personality but, according to Pat Jordan's article, regularly failed to show at charity events. In his own book, Canseco re-tells a number of well-publicized events in his personal life, always blaming someone else, portraying events as wrongly presented or exaggerated in the media, or just dismissing them as irrelevant. Jordan's article creates a figure who is lazy, foolish, irresponsible, lacks foresight, and is constantly in need of structure imposed upon him. He thinks he's misunderstood, Jordan implies he isn't. I don't know what to think.
As a player, Canseco was pretty much everything you watch sports for. Big, fast, powerful, everything he did was done with excess and spectacle. No short home runs that scraped the back of the outfield fence. In his prime, he was the best combination of power and speed in the game, the first 40-40 player of course, but also a player who could give fans those Bo Jackson kinds of visuals. The upper-deck home run at the Skydome, flexing his biceps at Red Sox fans chanting "steroids," the bodybuilder physique, the dalliances with Madonna and bloopers, like the one above, that simply could not have been done by anyone else. I liked Canseco in 1998 with Toronto, he had a really good year with 46 homers and 107 RBI's but of course was overshadowed by McGwire and Sosa chasing the home run record. He hit some very, very long homers, stole 29 bases (BUT that's in 46 attempts, a 63% success rate which = ew) and arguably had his best season since 1991. After 1998 he was injured, which was a common theme for most of his career, why he only played an average of 99 games from 1992-1997, and why he was basically finished as an impact player after 1999.
Injuries help contribute to any player's legend, whether Bo Jackson, Sandy Koufax, Bobby Orr or Bill Walton. With Canseco, the injuries seem to have hurt his legacy since they were attributed to his steroid use, a debatable contention. I think that's unfortunate and shows a bias against Canseco, since he certainly is not receiving the same proportional adulation ascribed to his fellow Tragically Injured. Last year he only received 6 Hall of Fame votes, or 1.1%, and less than the 5% necessary to remain on the ballot for another year. This for a player with careers numbers of 462 HRs (31st all-time, more than HOFers Carl Yastrzemski, Duke Snider and Al Kaline), 1407 RBI's (63rd all-time, more than HOFers Robin Yount and Joe Medwick), AVG/OBP/SLG of .266/.353/.515. This isn't an essay to get Jose Canseco into the Hall of Fame, his career wasn't that good, just a point that he was swept away pretty quickly for a high-impact player. Clearly, his career numbers were overshadowed by his cartoony persona and current steroid association. Maybe his NHL comparable would be Eric Lindros, just not impactful (not a real word, but a sports word) long enough. That would be an interesting stat analysis for another day...
These are the endless circles you run around in when you talk about Jose Canseco. I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame but do think he should have generated more debate. His career is rightly degraded because of his admitted continuous steroid use, yet with no rules against steroids at the time it's hard to hold him as accountable as an athlete caught today. His terribly bad book ratted out former teammates and friends for the sake of making money and raising his own profile, yet he was the only person to bravely (I guess) speak out and draw attention to the extent of the problem. You can't dismiss him as a loony toon, even though he is, because of how important he's become to baseball in the last few years. You also can't give him any credit because it seems like he did it accidental, that highlighting baseball's culture of PED's was a bemusing side note while he made a few bucks. I guess what you can do is write blog entries and throw up your hands.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Isn't that the damnest thing
Watching Ottawa-Pittsburgh and Washington-Philly tonight, both are terrific games and make me wish I hadn't said I don't care about the playoffs. That was a shortlived lie. The best part of the first game is that to this point (3-3, 9:00 of the third), Martin Gerber has been brilliant. All we heard this year from out east, after the Sundin trade nonsense and the Leafs' GM search ("Which GM candidate can eat the most earthworms in 30 seconds? Find out next, on 'The Biggest Loser: Search for the Leafs' GM'") was about Ottawa's goaltending situation. Gerber's terrible! Emery is killing the team! It's Bryan Murray's fault! Woe is all things Senator! Why can't this team EVER have a goalie!?!?!?! It's only two games of course, but this is some of the best goaltending this team has had, probably THE best. Hilarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)