So I haven't blogged in a long time and only one or two people are likely to read this (if anyone), but here's my thoughts on the Burke firing:

The fact that Burke was fired doesn't seem to be a shock to most, but the timing is somewhat perplexing.  I wasn't even sure how MLSE could let something so optically negative happen right at the start of a hockey season - let alone coming out of a lockout.   I had heard an earlier theory that George Cope (Boardmember from Bell) was the driving force behind this, but this alone didn't make the timing any more logical. However, it all started to make sense when I read, in a Dave Shoalts Globe & Mail article, that Bell and Rogers have an agreement in place that requires the four board members they appoint to the six-member board to vote together.

Basically, if its true that Bell and Rogers have a voting agreement in place (which is not uncommon), every vote of the MLSE board will be 4-2, 5-1 or 6-0, with the two Rogers and two Bell appointees always being contractually obligated to vote together.  This effectively renders Tanenbaum and Lastman powerless at the Board level, as there would never be an instance where Tanenbaum and Lastman would act as tiebreakers.  Rogers and Bell have to reach a unanimous decision amongst themselves and, in turn, that effectively becomes the decision of the MLSE board.  The vote is simply a formality and gives effect to the deal negotiated between Rogers and Bell.

In this case, assuming Cope was pushing to fire Burke, because of the agreement between Rogers and Bell , he was powerless to act without Ted Rogers' Jr. and Nadir Mohamed's agreement.  Ultimately, I would guess that the timing and the decision had nothing to do with anything hockey related and the unfortunate timing was simply a case of negotiating a deal down to the wire.  I really do think this was just back office dealing where Cope wanted to get rid of Burke and Rogers wanted something from Bell in exchange for its agreement to vote in favour of firing Burke (which it seems Rogers otherwise didn't want to do).   Given that Burke is no longer the Leaf's President & GM, I'm guessing Rogers finally got what it wanted from Bell; it just took a very long time for Bell to agree to give up whatever "it" was.   This is just pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a greater number of "premium" Leafs games this season on Sportsnet rather than TSN....which is fine by me, as my Rogers cable package doesn't include TSN in high-definition. 

1993 Leafs

I read an article on sportsnet regarding whether Canadian hockey fans consider reaching but losing in the conference finals a "success". The article discusses the Leafs' runs of the early 90's extensively. I wrote this in the comments section on the story, but thought I'd share it here as well.

The Leafs' 1993 run isn't memorable just because the Leafs got to the conference final. That run is memorable because of the quality of the games played and the drama associated with each round.

Round 1: Leafs fall behind 2-0 to Detroit before coming back and winning a dramatic game 7 in OT at the Joe on a goal by the dimunitive Nikolai Borchevsky.

Round 2: Leafs vs. Cujo - The Gilmour double OT goal from behind the net is one of the most memorable in Leafs history and set the scene for a hard fought back and forth series. With the exception of a lop-sided game 7 dominted by the Leafs, it was a close and intense series.

Round 3: Leafs vs. Gretzky/Fraser - The series was marred by the Game 6 controversy and for the third straight series, the Leafs went 7 games; this time against the greatest player in hockey history leading the charge on the other side. It was a classic showdown that unfortunately ended with a Kings victory. On top of all this, Montreal was waiting in the wings to play the victor. The thought of a Leafs-Habs final made the LA series that much more dramatic.

So like I said - it's not that we as Leafs fan are happy the Leafs only made it to the conference finals. The season was not a "success" because we made it to the final four. 1993 was just a special year filled with quality hockey and lots of excitement; that's why it's so well remembered (and why those games are still re-played so frequently on Leafs TV).

Ask yourself this: If Leafs fans were content with an appearance in the conference finals an didn't care about not winning the cup that year, then why is Kerry Fraser still so despised by Leafs nation for the Gretzky non-call in Game 6?

In case anyone ever questions my authority on all things blue & white...

Beat that if you can!

Why cheer for a team just because it's Canadian?

I was listening to Prime Time Sports on the way home from work last week and it was one of the rare occasions where I agreed with what Bobcat had to say. The question was who are you cheering for in the playoffs if your team is out? The panel seemed to suggest that, as a Canadian, you should be cheering for another Canadian team to win the cup. I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. As a fan of the Leafs, there is no chance in hell that I would ever cheer for the Sens or the Habs in the playoffs. The last thing I want is to see either of those teams hoisting Lord Stanley's mug. As for the Canucks, they're thousands of miles away. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to cheer for the Sabres who are an hour drive away?

Here's the thing - this isn't the olympics. Picking a "favourite" in the playoffs has nothing to do with national pride. Look down the rosters fo the Canadian teams and you'll see a lot of non-Canadians.

Personally, I'd like to see a team like LA, Colorado or Phoenix make a strong run. I'd particularly like to see Colorado move on because of Darcy Tucker...my 2nd favourite Leaf of all time.

Head Shots

I'm going to step outside of Leafland for a minute and consider the league wide issue of head shots. First, I do feel bad for Savard. However, in fairness to Cooke, he did not use his elbow and Savard's head was down. Quite frankly, at the time of the hit, I don't think it was an illegal hit and, in turn, I don't think it's fair to punish Cooke for the hit. Punishing Cooke for the Savard hit makes about as much sense as retroactively punishing Scott Stevens for every hit where he hit a forward with his head down at the blue line.

I also just read that league has created a new rule to address the issue, which provides as follows:

"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted."

TSN's current poll says "Is the proposed rule change enough?" and its headline is "The Solution?", insinuating that the league hasn't done enough. Personally, I think the league has taken a huge stride by banning blindside hits to the head. Like I said above, you should only punish someone for breaking a rule and Matt Cooke didn't break any rules at the time of the incident. However, with the new rule, if anyone does the same thing Cooke did to Savard, there is a rule to turn to, which will : (a) allow referees to assess a penalty; and (b) provide a basis for further league sanction deemed necessary.

So has the league done enough? Yes. Blindside hits to the head are now illegal and offenders will be punished. What more do you want?

Just Another Leafs Blog

So here's the deal...I, like so many others, am a die-hard and very opinionated Toronto Maple Leafs fan. I am a frequent reader of all things Leaf-related on Sportsnet, TSN, the Fan590, etc. More often than not, I disagree with the opinions and analysis available on these sites and, while they offer the opportunity to comment, those comments just get lost in the mix. So, I'm just going to post my opinions here and hope people read it.

I'm not an NHL insider, so you won't get any rumours here other than the occassional and unsubstantiated rumours that I read about elsewhere; I'm not a member of the media, so you won't get any interviews with Leafs players and personnel; and I'm not promising that you'll find anything particularly original on here - just my opinion.