When I hear people actually criticizing Sundin for wanting to stay in Toronto I get a little crazy inside.  This guy is passing up an opportunity to play for the Stanley Cup so he can stay and finish his career, uninterrupted, in his favourite city.

Back in 2004 when Vince Carter requested to be traded out of Toronto the media jumped on him for being disloyal; the very same media that’s essentially saying Sundin is being too loyal.

And it’s not just Sundin either.  Darcy Tucker and Tomas Kaberle also have no-trade clauses and they too have said they want to stay in Toronto and have subsequently been called out by the media for being “selfish”.

These players signed a contract that gave him the power to control their own destiny to some degree.  Essentially, guys like Lansberg are criticizing them for exercising that control.  I don’t understand the point of having the clause if we’re not going to allow them to exercise them free from attack.

Sundin has openly said that he doesn’t agree with the idea of “rental players” and subsequently there have been talks of the next collective bargaining agreement restricting the practice.  What Sundin is doing this year might have consequences many years down the road.  If the league can get rid of the rental player maybe there will be more Steve Yzermans to look forward to.

Mats Sundin – as mentioned in a previous post, Mats has a no-trade clause (NTC) which makes it hard, but not impossible, for him to be traded. However, if the Leafs are able to trade him to a team that doesn’t require him to be signed to a contract extension (therefore meaning he’ll be a free agent next year) and promise to sign him back with the Leafs after the playoffs, he might wave the NTC. Likelihood of being traded: 80%

Darcy Tucker – Tucker also has a NTC, and other than Mats he’s been with the team the longest. However, unlike Mats, Tucker is having a miserable year and he may be looking for a change of scenery. And even though he’s struggling, there is still a huge market for a gritty player like Tucker, especially teams looking for a long playoff run. Likelihood of being traded: 60%

Jason Blake – Even though we signed him just this year and he’s having only a slightly better season than Tucker, Blake is still an attractive player. He scored 40 goals last year and he’s still showing that he has the speed. If teams aren’t scared off by the four years left on his contract he could be on his way out of Leaf Land. Likelihood of being traded: 35%

Chad Kilger – No stranger to being moved – the Leafs are his seventh team – Kilger could be a strong bet to be on the block this week. He’s a hard hitter who plays with a lot of energy, someone a lot of teams could use in the playoffs. He’s making less than a million a year, so salary will not be an issue. Likelihood of being traded: 35%

Nik Antropov/Alexei Ponikarovsky – Best friends who love to play the cycling game, Nik and Poni could be parting ways. They both have modest contracts and their ability to tire out defensemen along the boards should be attractive to playoff teams. Being injury prone may be a detractor. Likelihood of being traded: 30% / 20%

Andrew Raycroft – If a playoff team suffers a goalie injury in the next week, you can bet the Leafs GM will be getting a call. Some teams with cap space may also be able to invest in Raycroft as an insurance policy even if they have no immediate injury problems. Likelihood of being traded: 15%

Bryan McCabe/Pavel Kubina/Tomas Kaberle – McCabe and Kubina have enormous contracts that will scare off buyers and Kaberle is one of the few untouchables on the Leafs’ roster. It’s unlikely that these D-men are going anywhere: Likelihood of being traded: 15% / 10% / 3%

Saturday, February 9 – Victory over the Red Wings (ranked 1st in the West)
Thursday, February 7 – Victory over the Canadiens (ranked 3rd in the East)
Tuesday, February 5 – Loss to the Panthers (ranked 12th in the East)
Saturday, February 2 – Victory over the Senators (ranked 1st in the East)
Thursday, January 31 – Loss to the Hurricanes (ranked 10th in the East)
Tuesday, January 29 – Loss to the Blues (ranked 12th in the West)

Sure, a .500 stretch over six games is pretty good for the Buds these days but looking at who they’re beating and who they’re losing to really sums up this team. The three victories were against teams with an average conference ranking of 1.6 while the three losses were against teams with an average of 11.3.

It’s clear that the players have given up on this season, as I am sure many of their fans have as well. They get up for the games against the big name teams but then disappear against the lower echelon clubs.

It begs the question: at this point in the season, can we blame them for not giving their all, night in and night out? Yes, they’re being paid millions of dollars to do their job, but these guys want to win and it’s not going to happen this year.

Professional sports rewards winning, but it also rewards losing. The Leafs are currently looking at a possible No. 1 draft selection next year; the more they lose the more likely they are to get it.

There are other rewards for losing as well. If you’re an elite player – let’s say Mats Sundin – the more you lose the more likely you are to be traded to an elite team. As a natural consequence of this scenario, the non-elite players win too (by losing). A player like Mats Sundin would bring in some draft picks and prospects that the non-elite players could play beside the following year.

I’m not saying they should try to lose (the Senators were fined $100,000 in 1993 after it was found they were intentionally losing games) and I’m not saying that they are trying to lose. I just don’t think they’re trying to win.

This past Saturday the Leafs beat the Senators in the Battle of Ontario.  Not only did I not watch the game, but when I found out we won, I didn’t even light my mattress on fire and throw it over the balcony (that’s how we celebrate in London).

But the next day, I watched Tom Brady march down the field in Arizona and throw a go-ahead touchdown pass to Randy Moss, and I rejoiced.  Boy, did I rejoice.  And then I cried when I watched Eli Manning march right back down the field and throw his own go-ahead pass to win the Super Bowl (this is a joke.  I didn’t actually cry, but I did cry at the end of House of Sand and Fog

; that’s really sad movie).

How is it that I’m finding myself more emotionally involved with a pack of American footballers than my own flesh and blood Leafs?  This doesn’t feel right.

As I’m writing this, the Leafs have just gone down 8-0 to the Florida Panthers.  The Florida Panthers?  As I retrieve my turtle from behind the T.V. and put him back in his terrarium (and you thought the way we celebrated was weird), I notice now that lately I feel more emotion when we lose than when we win.  I’m not a psychologist (or is it psychiatrist?), but I’m sure this can’t be good for the relationship.

’s access restrictions because Leafs fans are the only fans that are guaranteed a nationally televised game at least once a week (Hockey Night in Canada).

Well, I’ve been doing some thinking and I think Leafs should be the only fans given such a guarantee.

Plain and simple, there are more Leafs fans out there in this crazy world we live in than any other hockey team. I’m not just talking about in Canada either. When the Leafs travel to any U.S. city there are always dozens of blue and white jerseys in the crowd. In Buffalo, the crowd is nearly 50% Leafs supporters. In Tampa Bay or Florida it’s about 20%.

When I travelled to Europe, and mentioned to locals that I was from Toronto (because saying I was from London was all too confusing), invariably I would hear “Ohhh. Mats Sundin. Ya.” Yes, they have HNIC in Europe, too.

Now, I’m not going to get in the chicken and the egg argument here. It doesn’t matter if there are more Leafs fans because there are more Leafs games on TV or if there are more Leafs games on TV because there are more Leafs fans. The fact remains that CBC is presumably run by intelligent people. There is currently more of a market for televised Maple Leaf hockey than any other brand of hockey.

Yes, the Canadians have a storied history and the Canucks have green and blue uniforms, but until they give CBC any reason to believe that they can pull in the same kind of numbers that the Leafs are currently pulling in, I will be happily watching Leaf Night in Canada.

Because it was on Leafs TV. Leafs TV is what is known in the direct satellite and digital cable industry as a Category 2 specialty channel. One of the major differences between Category 2 and Category 1 channels (Independent Film Channel, Biography Channel, OUTtv) is that the former do NOT have to be carried by all Canadian satellite and cable companies, while the latter do.

This distinction means that every regional satellite or cable company can decide whether or not they want to carry Leafs TV with no pressure from the CRTC to do so. My digital cable supplier – Bell – decided not to. I called up Jeremy* from Bell Canada today to see if he knew why. Here’s what we discussed**:

“Hi, Jeremy, I just have a quick question for you, more a curiosity than anything else. Why is Leafs TV not available here in Vancouver?”

“Well, Leafs TV is a channel that is directed towards a Toronto audience. We don’t even offer it in some parts of Ontario.”

“But Jeremy, you offer Raptors TV here in Vancouver. Isn’t that channel directed towards a Toronto audience as well?”

“Uh, no, since there aren’t any other basketball teams in Canada, the station is geared towards a more national audience.”

“So what you’re saying is that the Canucks, Flames, Oilers, Senators and Canadians are screwing me. Is that what you’re saying, Jeremy?”

“I just work here, sir.”

“Well, you’re doing a fine job, Goodbye.”

So, it appears that until the other five Canadian teams follow the path south with the Coyotes and Nordiques, I’m left only with the rare nationally televised game on TSN and ol’ faithful, Saturday’s Hockey Night in Canada (don’t even get me started on Sportsnet and their blackouts).

*I think that was his name; the connection wasn’t very good (talk about irony).
**Some paraphrasing was used.

For the last week or so, Leafs captain Mats Sundin has been rumoured to be of interest to the Canucks organization (along with the Flames and Red Wings). And with Fletcher in place this trade might actually happen. If Ferguson was still in charge no trade involving Sundin was ever going to happen for two reasons.

First of all, Ferguson’s mandate was to make the playoffs, plain and simple. He knew if his team missed the playoffs for the third time in a row (that has never happened in Leafs’ history) he might as well fire himself. Trading Sundin would effectively be giving up on the playoffs and he wasn’t willing to do that.

Secondly, Sundin has a no trade clause in his contract, which means that he would have to approve any deal involving him leaving Toronto. Sundin has said in the past that he wants to retire as a Leaf; I don’t think that Ferguson would have been able to convince him to say goodbye to Toronto, even to go to a more competitive team.

I don’t think these two roadblocks apply to Ferguson’s replacement. Fletcher realizes why he’s there: to make lemonade out of lemons. He’s there to make the most out of what Ferguson left him. With the current Leafs squad, I think Fletcher realizes they’re probably not going to make the playoffs, so he can focus on the next season and shoring up some cap space for next season by moving Sundin along with other players who have expensive long-term contracts.

In terms of Sundin’s no-trade clause, I think Fletcher can get over this hump as well. Fletcher was the one that brought Sundin to Toronto back in a 1994 draft day trade (for another fan favourite, Wendel Clark), so they have a relationship. He may not only be able to convince Sundin to take a trade, but perhaps also convince him to sign back with Toronto for the 2008-09 season. Who knows? All I know is that for the Leaf’s, next seasons starts today. For Canucks fans, they have to hope that Sundin would rather play with a bunch of Swedes in Vancouver rather than play with a bunch of Swedes in Detroit.

Sure, we’ve been off and on for 16 years and the last couple have been kind of rocky, but 16 years is 16 years and I thought we were going to make it.

But it’s been tough.  My long distance relationship with the Toronto Maple Leafs has been one of the hardest things I’ve had to go through in my life. Not only is the team struggling, but I’m spending $86 a month in long distance phone bills calling people in Ontario who actually care about the Bud’s plight.

Making it harder, the Canucks are doing well in a tough Western conference while the Leafs are foundering well below the final playoff position in a weaker Eastern conference. I’m by no means a Canuck hater, but it’s like being alone on Valentine’s day, surrounded by couples, in Paris, sitting on the bench where you once proposed to your now ex-girlfriend.

Well, where do we stand? Are we still together? I think so. I’m not ready to throw away the years we’ve had together, although I sometimes cry myself to sleep, listening to Nina Simone records, trying to convince myself that I am indeed “feelin’ good”.

I don’t have to look very far to see how long distance relationships can fail. My colleague Blake was once involved with the Leafs as well. However, after spending four formative years in sultry Montreal… well you know where this goes from here. I resolve to not follow the same path.

They say that every successful relationship has one common ingredient. Good communication. I think our relationship is no different. I’m going to use this forum as way of keeping the dialogue flowing with the Leafs all the way from over here in Vancouver, while at the same time being honest about my (waning?) feelings. Wish me – and the Leafs – luck.