jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (12/18/84)
Carlo Sgro (..!utzoo!oscvax!carlo) and I have been carrying on a lengthy
discussion by mail these days, which we've now decided to post. I've sorted
our mail into three of the topics we've discussed, and posted each one
separately. The discussion centres around the Maple Leafs, since their problems
are what got our discussion started, but most of what follows should interest
all hockey fans. Besides, we'd like to get other opinions on this too.
I started this discussion off by suggesting that the Leafs could send Rick
Vaive to the Rangers as part of a big trade.
***** CARLO: *****
I don't think that the Leafs should be too anxious to give up Rick Vaive. He's
a proven 40 or 50 goal scorer. Those are hard to get, nowadays. Of course,
if someone makes THEM an offer that they can't refuse ...
One last wise word on trading to fill a glaring weakness: I bring to your
attention the sport of baseball and a team known as the Toronto Blue Jays.
Let us go back to last year's off-season, during which it was decided to
make a trade to solve the Jays' bullpen woes. They made a deal with the
Seattle Mariners to bring a left-handed pitcher named Bryan Clark to the
Jays for Barry Bonnell, a very solid .300 hitting outfielder. Bryan Clark
was a bust. Barry Bonnell hit .300 again last season. I don't want
to see the same thing happen with a Salming or Vaive trade. If you think
that the Leafs are bad now ...
***** JEFF: *****
It's funny you should mention baseball and the Blue Jays as a comparison.
Baseball teams seem a lot less reluctant to make big trades. If a baseball
team doesn't think they have a chance at the championship with their current
team, they change it, even if it means making a very risky trade like Collins
and Griffin for Caudill. For some reason, this doesn't seem to happen very
much in hockey and I don't understand it. If you don't win the Stanley Cup,
================================
you're just an also-ran, regardless of whether you're 2nd or 21st. The
=================================================================
Leafs are far from being a contender, and they won't become one by just
sitting tight, so it's time they took a chance and made a big trade to at
least try to turn things around.
***** CARLO: *****
I think that I understand why. It goes back to the underlined statement.
I don't think that this is true as stated. I think that, in all sports,
it should be worded "If you don't make the playoffs, you're just an also-ran;
if you make the playoffs but you don't win the {Super Bowl||World Series||
Stanley Cup}, build but don't destroy." The Blue Jays didn't make the
playoffs. They sensed that their fans wouldn't be satisfied if they continued
in that vein. Therefore, they had to make a big deal. Look at the Tigers.
The only deal that I can think of that they made was to trade Howard Johnson
away. Johnson was the only player that they had that didn't play in the
World Series. The Cubbies had to open up their wallets to keep from being
destroyed. The Padres were destroyed in the World Series; they essentially
didn't have a starting staff so they had to get Hoyt. Likewise in football.
The BIG teams don't usually make the big deals (unless they can rape the other
team or if they're feeling unusual pressures from those below them). In
baseball and football, most of the teams DO NOT make the playoffs. This is
not true in hockey (we had a discussion about this earlier in the term).
In hockey, it's OK to be in third in your division since, with a little
luck, you could go far in the post-season (e.g. Roger Neilson & Vancouver
a few years ago). For the Leafs, people would be happy if they placed
third in their division. Yes, that's right, the Norris. It's all relative.
And they'll still fill the building (albeit with people with paper bags over
their heads). Some of the biggest trades in hockey recently have been
triggered by attendance drops and relative drops in the standings. A
beautiful example is the Grundman era in Montreal. The Leafs' glory days
are too far back for people to relate to them. Therefore, the only thing
that fans can compare to is something like being third in the Norris.
That goal is achievable under present management and tactics.
***** JEFF: *****
What you said about making the playoffs probably is the reason why hockey
teams won't make risky trades, as is evidenced by the fact that teams seem
to rise from near the bottom of the standings to near the top (over the
course of a couple of seasons) much more often than they rise from the middle
to the top.
***** CARLO: *****
Good Point! It seems that desperation is the mother of development (to
bastardize a cliche).
***** JEFF: *****
even though a lot of the early picks in the first round of the
draft don't work out any better than the later ones. (Actually, everybody
gets a decent player most of the time in the first round, so great teams
are built in the second round and later, but that's another story.)
That's another good argument for letting fewer teams into the playoffs.
***** CARLO: *****
Interesting theory. If I have time when I'm back home in Waterloo on the
holidays (i.e. where my references are), I might check into that.
***** JEFF: *****
My theory about the draft is based on the following observation: If you
look at a team like the Leafs, their best players are usually pretty well
all first-round draft choices, like Vaive, Derlago, Benning, and Anderson.
Teams like Edmonton, however, although they have great first draft choices
like Coffey, Lowe and Fuhr, always seem to have a lot of their best players
come from later rounds, like Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Huddy and Gregg.
I'm actually kind of glad that the Leafs are losing so often, because
it seems that you can't make it to the top unless you hit rock bottom first.
If they'll be satisfied with third in the division, I hope they finish
somewhere they won't be satisfied with. Then maybe in an effort to make
themselves good enough for third place, they might make themselves good
enough for first. I certainly wouldn't be satisfied with third in the
Norris Division. (Third in the Adams or Patrick, maybe)
***** CARLO: *****
I'm sure that they will finish somewhere that they won't *really* be satisfied
with. It'll take a helluva genius-like trade or draft to get them into first,
though.
***** JEFF: *****
I don't think it would take all that much to put the Leafs into first, at
least not if we're willing to wait a couple of years. A couple of deals
to put the talent, potential and experience in the right places should
allow a lot of their young players to develop into stars, which should give
us a team that's at least good enough for first place in the division, which
is just a little better than .500 now.
***** CARLO: *****
The way that I see it, the Leafs (or any sports franchise that is in a bad
situation) have three basic options:
1) stay put, build through the draft, use the minors to get feet wet.
2) major shake-up.
3) minor shake-up.
The problem with 1) is that that was what got them here in the first place.
The reason that it didn't work with the Leafs was that they did NOT use
the minors as a training ground but instead used the majors as an immersion
tank, drowning some of the players in the meantime. Media pressure is
also a BIG factor, as in New York. 2) could be a disaster since
"major shake-up"="panic", usually. 2) and 3) share the problem of
the lack of non-young talent that the Leafs have. I don't think they
would want to trade people like Benning, Iafrate, Leeman, Nylund (although
I heard that he was benched last night), Courtnall (at least they'd better
not!), and their other young players.
***** JEFF: *****
I agree with your comparison with the Blue Jays, but unfortunately it's a
lot easier to make trades in baseball. In baseball there are nine different
positions, and you really only need one good player at each position (not
counting pitcher), plus some bench strength, so if you have two good
shortstops, you trade one and strengthen another position. They don't have
to worry so much about having the right blend of youth and experience at
each position (they still have to do it but it's a lot simpler: if your
starter's getting old, make sure you're developing a young player that can
replace him in a few years) and it's usually much clearer whether a player
is or is not expendable.
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff