The Leafs/Canucks tampering case: Another fake NHL outrage

From this point on, the Sedins
will be sleeping in these.

It's ... the hockey world's most annoying new trend: fake outrage. And it doesn't take much these days to get hockey fans up on their soap boxes.

Me, from a June 14 post

And here we go again.

Yes, it's mid-July and there's nothing to talk about in the NHL, so somebody somewhere needs to drum up a fake controversy to give us all something to shout at each other about.

And right on queue, here comes the Vancouver media. Lead by Jason Botchford of the Vancouver Province, they're desperately trying to whip up a frenzy over Ron Wilson and the Leafs tampering with the Sedin twins.

This all stems from Wilson's June 30 appearance on a Toronto radio station. During a discussion on potential free agent targets, he specifically mentioned the Sedins by name.

The Sedins never even made it to free agency, resigning with Vancouver the next morning (as Burke has already pointed out). But, the argument goes, Wilson's comments could have been used as leverage in last-minute negotiations. This may not have cost the Canucks the twins, but it could have cost them a lot of money.

There's a problem with that theory: by Blotchford's own reporting, the Sedin's had already received matching 5 year, $30M offers from the Canucks before Wilson ever opened his mouth. Hours before free agency began, the twins were able to negotiate themselves all the way up to ... 5 years and $30.5M.

That's right: a difference of $500K each. Total. Less than 2% of the value of the contract.

Not even enough money per year between the two of them to sign a single player to league-minimum deal. Less money than Kyle Wellwood spends in a week on Swiss Chalet dipping sauce.

And that's not even the biggest hole in the story. The entire premise of Blotchford's little scandal rests on the idea that, until Wilson opened his mouth, nobody knew the Leafs might target the Sedins.

But everybody knew. Just about every hockey outlet on the planet had spent weeks speculating about whether Burke would land the Sedins.

But we're supposed to believe that the idea had never occurred to agent J.P. Barry. Until the moment Wilson opened his mouth, of course, at which point Barry slapped his forehead and realized that the GM who had drafted the twins and had tons of money and cap room just might make an offer.

Of course, there is a precedent here. The St. Louis Blues lost a first round pick to the Devils as compensation for a tampering charge involving Scott Stevens. This case has been widely cited by Canuck fans as being a good comparison to the Wilson fiasco.

But there's a part that gets left out. In the Stevens case, the NHL determined that the Blues had been negotiating with Stevens, who was still under contract to New Jersey, and had already agreed with him on an offer sheet.

So we have one case where a coach drops a name on the radio, and another where another's team's player is already signed and sealed before ever reaching free agency. Yes, Vancouver, those two situations certainly do sound very similar.

(It's also worth pointing out that it took the NHL four years to come to a decision on Stevens. Apparently the case was heard by Mats Sundin.)

So how will it all play out? Tough to say. Tampering is one of those rules which isn't well-defined, has no specific punishment, and rests largely in the realm of "commissioner's discretion". That means Gary Bettman can do pretty much whatever he pleases here.

Ordinarily, the result would be predictable: help the small market team, screw the large market. But in this case, both Toronto and Vancouver are large markets. And since neither city is a struggling southern franchise without any fans, there's a good chance Bettman will just lose interest completely.

What Bettman should do is have the league investigate further... just in case. After all, if this goes any further than an offhand comment on live radio (such as actual contact between the Leafs and the Sedins before July 1), then it's a whole new ballgame and the Leafs will deserve whatever the get.

But if not, he should fine Wilson (for being an idiot), fine the Leafs too (since Wilson's an idiot), issue a stern warning and be done with it.

Finally, a friendly note to Canuck fans. Yes, we all understand why you're pretending this is such an outrage. After all, there's a possibility (however slim) that you could receive some Toronto draft picks out of this. And since the current Leafs roster is projected to score about 16 goals over the entire course of next season, those picks should be pretty decent.

So yes, we understand why you're acting like a broke college kid who just got into a fender bender with a guy driving a Porsche, grabbing your neck and shouting "whiplash" at any lawyer who wanders by. We get it.

But you may want to dial it back a little. It's one thing for some bored media types to try to create a story out of thin air. There's no rule that says you have to embarass yourself as you play along.

Bob Gainey interviews Jacques Martin: The secret transcript

Second round? Never heard of it.

The Montreal Canadiens have named Jacques Martin as their new head coach. And while this announcement has caught many off guard, it's no surprise to my top-secret DGB sources who tipped me off about it over the weekend.

In fact, I was able to obtain a full recording of Martin's interview with Montreal GM Bob Gainey. I think this explosive transcript will shed a lot of light on how Martin managed to land one of the most coveted jobs in sports.

Bob Gainey: Jacques, I want to thank you for coming in for this interview. Do you have any other commitments on your time today? As you can imagine, the interview process can be quite daunting for a job as prestigious as this one.

Jacques Martin: No problem, I'm willing to spend all day here if I need to.

Gainey: OK, great. First question: do you speak French?

Martin: Yes I do.

Gainey: Great. You're hired!

Martin: ... Um, sorry?

Gainey: You're hired. You nailed pretty much every qualification we have.

Martin: Oh.

Gainey: Is there a problem?

Martin: I just thought we were going to spend some time talking about my experience.

Gainey: Oh. Well, sure, I suppose we could do that. If you really want to.

Martin: Well, my coaching career began with the Blues. Then I spent nine years as the coach of the Ottawa Senators. And for the past five years I've been with the Florida Panthers.

Gainey: I don't remember you coaching the Blues.

Martin: Nobody does.

Gainey: OK, so let's skip that part and move on to Ottawa.

Martin: Well, with the Senators I was best known for accomplishing something that virtually no other active NHL coach has managed to do.

Gainey: Which was?

Martin: Losing to the Toronto Maple Leafs in the playoffs.

Gainey (nodding): Yeah, I think we all saw that one coming.

Martin: We lost to them four times, but the toughest one was in 2004. We made it to game seven, but then Patrick Lalime had an epic meltdown. We really believed that he was the guy who could backstop our team to a championship, but then he just imploded.

Gainey: So you're saying you have experience dealing with over-hyped goalies who choke in the playoffs?

Martin: Extensive experience.

Gainey: (Makes a big checkmark on his notepad)

Martin: Yeah.

Gainey: And what about your playoff experience since 2004?

Martin: You heard the part where I said I worked for the Florida Panthers, right?

Gainey: Sorry. My mistake. What about in St. Louis, what was your playoff record like there?

Martin: No idea. Like I said, nobody remembers me coaching the Blues.

Gainey: Fair enough. As you know, the media here in Montreal can be difficult. What sort of experience do you have dealing with the media?

Martin: Well, in Ottawa they were very difficult to deal with. They were constantly asking me for autographs, bringing me coffee, or just offering me random hugs and back rubs. But they could be nasty, too. Sometimes, when we choked in the playoffs against a team we should have easily beaten, somebody would actually write a negative article. They'd always apologize the next day and print a retraction, but still, it was pretty rough.

Gainey: And what about dealing with all the hockey media in Florida, was that difficult?

Martin: (Laughs)

Gainey: (Laughs)

Martin: So anyways, I'm sure I could handle the Montreal media. I have a well-tested strategy for working with the press.

Gainey: Which is?

Martin: I'm so incredibly boring that they all quit after fifteen minutes of listening to me.

Gainey: Well Jacques, I think you're our man. Do you have any questions for me?

Martin: Just one: Any update on the ownership situation?

Gainey: We're expecting an announcement soon, but I can't really say more than that.

Martin: Understood.

Gainey: You like Celine Dion music, right?

Martin: Um...

Leafs Abomination: The Leaked List of Chapter Titles

The fine folks over at Pension Plan Puppets broke the news today of a new book being released this October - Leafs AbomiNation, by Dave Feschuk and Michael Grange.

Sub-titled "The dismayed fan's handbook to why the Leafs stink and how they can rise again", the book is apparently aimed at fans who thought the Macleans article from last year was great, but just wished it had been 200 pages longer and written by two NBA beat reporters. It features a front cover with a Leaf fan wearing a bag over his head and a very clever "$19.67" price starburst, which we should all appreciate now since it will be covered by an "80% off" sticker by November.

As you'd expect, the folks over at PPP have already gone negative. They assume, without even seeing the book, that it will be nothing more than a long, poorly-written screed that will recycle all the familiar cliches, void of any new ideas and ultimately blaming Leaf fans for everything. But that's not fair. There's no reason to assume the book will be long.

Anyway, I managed to obtain an advanced copy of Leafs AbomiNation. While I don't have permission to print an excerpt, I wanted to do something to give readers a taste of what to expect. So...

Here's a top secret list of the chapter titles from this upcoming masterpiece.

• Not one single Stanley Cup in a generation: An embarrassment that could only happen in Toronto, and 14 other cities



• An unshakable loyalty to the home team through good times and bad, and other terrible character flaws of Maple Leaf fans



• The mysterious and spooky curse of the owner who refused to spend any money on hockey operations for 20 years.



• First Draft Schmaft: How we managed to write this book in one weekend



• An examination of the Leafs' futility using in-depth statistical analysis... no, just kidding, "1967!"



• Things we imagine Leaf fans would say if we'd ever spoken to one



• What MLSE should be doing: Business advice from two guys who make their living in an industry that won't exist anymore in ten years



• Plan the Parade... to the recycling bin



• Why 1927 is more recent than 1967: Advanced theoretical mathematics from Ottawa Senator fans



• Spilling into the streets to celebrate winning a playoff game: Pathetic and lame when Leaf fans do it, admirable passion when it's Calgary and Edmonton



• The Pat Quinn era of sustained regular season success and long playoff runs: Nope, never heard of it



• Montreal Canadiens fans would never meekly put up with a bunch of underachieving, overpaid losers (Note: chapter currently being rewritten)



• Leafs fans are gullible morons who'll buy anything with a Leafs logo on it no matter how awful the product is, or at least we hope so because that's this book's entire business plan

The National Post on the Brian Burke twitter account

Oh no. Another newspaper has noticed the Brian Burke twitter account. After the whole debacle with the Globe and Mail and Eklund, this can't possibly go well...

Over to you, Bruce Arthur in today's National Post:

Of all of Twitter's characteristics, necessity is not among them. In fact, the most entertaining Twitter feeds in sports tend to have nothing to do with athletes. Instead, they are satire feeds like the one lampooning espn.com columnist Rick Reilly, or the parody of Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke which includes entries like the one from Feb. 21 that read, "Just ran into Kyle Wellwood arriving at the ACC. He seemed kind of depressed. Told him to keep his chins up."

Now that's worth following. As for the rest? Bah, humbug.

Um... wait, what? Let me go back and read that again. There must be some mistake.

Where's the feigned confusion? Where's the mock outrage? Where's the implication that Leaf fans are dumb and need to have obvious jokes explained to them?

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that Arthur actually gets the joke. He seems to think it's sort of funny. Heck, he even picked an example that allows me to use my favorite tag on this post.

Sorry Bruce. You're just not going to last long in this market with that kind of attitude.

(In case you're wondering, the fake Rick Reilly account Arthur mentions was briefly shut down by twitter before being resurrected two weeks ago. That account is run by the folks from Deadspin and Kissing Suzy Kolber, two of the most popular sports blogs on the planet. And thanks to their constant updates and high profile promotion, fake Rick Reilly has gone on to become the second most popular sports parody twitter in the entire world. Keep up the good work, guys!)

A word about the Brian Burke twitter controversy

So, this whole Brian Burke twitter things seems to have gotten away from me over the weekend.

Here's the background: Blogger creates parody twitter feed. A handful of people have a laugh about it. A few blogs post links. A few forums start threads. Word spreads. A mainstream reporter writes a story that, predictably, misses the point entirely. Lawyers become involved.

OK, that last one hasn't happened yet. Unless you count Burke himself, who apparently had to take time out of his day to assure the Globe and Mail that the account isn't his.

A few notes:

1. Yes, it's a parody. No, the real Brian Burke does not publicly tamper with Rick Nash and the Sedins, isn't planning on shooting any players, and did not try to drown Jeremy Williams in the Atlantic Ocean. He also may be aware the Lee Stempniak is on the Leafs roster, although that one's a little less certain.
   
   
2. If you were genuinely confused about #1 at any point, then... well.. the good news is you're apparently qualified to work at a major Toronto daily.
   
   
3. No, the account hasn't been shut down... yet. The Twitter terms of service is very clear that parody accounts are permitted. Then again, I guess it will depend on who's doing the complaining, and how loudly.
   
   
4. No, I don't know who's doing the 20+ other fake NHL twitters that have shown up in the past few weeks. But feel free to check them out; many are listed here.
   
   
5. If you are the real Brian Burke and you're reading this... get back to work! You have like 19 guys to trade by next Wednesday. Stop screwing around on the internet!

I think that covers it. If you're new to Down Goes Brown because of the twitter link or the coverage around it and you'd like to see more of what I've done, check out the greatest hits section. And if you can't get enough of social media parody, don't miss the fake Maple Leafs facebook page.

If you like what you see, please stick around. If not, don't worry, I won't spam the Burke twitter feed with blog ads.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming. Coming up soon, an 8,000 word post about Felix Potvin punching Dino Ciccarelli in 1993, more waffling on Mats Sundin, and a dozen more "Kyle Wellwood is fat" jokes.

Update: In a twist to the story that makes my head hurt, Eklund has announced that he contacted Burke to confirm it wasn't him.

I'm not sure which is stranger, the idea of Eklund taking a stand against anonymous online fakers, or that even when reporting the incredibly obvious Eklund is still 12 hours behind the mainstream media.

While I'd feel genuinely bad if Burke himself actually does think I'm "scum", getting a lecture from Eklund about how I've "deeply sets back the cause" of hockey bloggers is just a little rich.

Update #2: Just got an e-mail saying "David Shoalts is now following you on Twitter!" This can not end well.

Update #3: Puck Daddy has more on my side of the story.

The Ottawa Sun: Your source for coverage of the Leafs and also those other guys

I've made the occasional mention of the defining characteristic of a Senators fan: a crippling insecurity about the Maple Leafs. This leads to folks in Ottawa spending a lot of time complaining that the Leafs are on TV too much, accusing every broadcaster of secretly being a Toronto homer, and pleading with Leaf fans to not make too much noise at Senator games.

But there are days when you have to feel for these guys. While it may seem pathetic to spend your every waking hour looking under your bed for Leaf fans, sometimes it's understandable. After all, it's not paranoia if it's true.

For example, today's Ottawa Sun has a 20-page sports section. Here's how their hockey coverage breaks down:

Ottawa Senators:

• One almost full-page story about last night's Islanders game
  
• An additional full page of Sens/Isles coverage with Don Brennan
  
• A one-page fluff piece about Shean Donovan, the sort of thing you expect to see in a high school newsletter. We learn that he likes Kraft Dinner and Nickelback

Toronto Maple Leafs:

• A small story about last night's Leafs/Flyers game
  
• A half-page column on Brian Burke (Mike Zeisberger's piece from the Toronto Sun)
  
• Two more full pages about Brian Burke (from Bill Lankhof)
  
• Bruce Garrioch's "Rinkwrap" rumor column, featuring four separate items on the Leafs (nothing about Ottawa)
  
• A short story about Jason Blake's upcoming return to the lineup
  
• Steve Simmons' weekly column, most of which is about the Leafs

Just to be clear, this is the Ottawa Sun.

I can only imagine how maddening it must be as a Sens fan to open your own local paper and see more ink spilled about your hated rival than about your own team. Sure, Brian Burke is a big story, but if the Sens hired a new GM tomorrow do you think the Toronto Sun would give it more than two column inches?

Hell, there's even a top ten list of famous "own goals", written by the Winnipeg Sun's Todd Wyman, that includes Bryan McCabe but somehow leaves out Chris Phillips' infamous wraparound on Ray Emery. The Sens can't even get a mention when they score a Stanley Cup winner.

So the next time you mention the Leafs to a Sens fan and they start into a red-faced, spittle-launching rant about Bob Cole and the Toronto Sports Network and the secret message you hear if you play the HNIC theme backwards and how unfair it all is... give them a break.

They may be on to something.

Leafs vs Habs in 1993: Sportsnet has the answer

Who would have won a Stanley Cup FInal between Wendel's Leafs and Patrick Roy's Habs? We've all debated it. Now, Sportsnet television superstar Ian Mendes has the definitive answer.

Background: I've known Ian for years. Despite covering the Sens beat, he's a die-hard Habs fan (but has to pretend to like the Sens so that the rest of the Ottawa homer media don't ostracize him).

I've had about four fozen arguments with him about a Habs/Leafs series over the years. These arguments can get into an astounding level of hypothetical detail. I won't spoil the end of his article, but I'm taking personal credit for any success the Leafs may have.

Economics 101: Why "blame the fan" doesn't make sense

MLSE has no incentive to ice a winning team because the ACC is already full every night, even when the team isn't good. If fans refused to buy tickets unless the team was doing well, MLSE would have to invest in a winning team. Therefore, the fans are to blame for the Leafs lack of success.

The argument above is well-known, often repeated, and makes absolutely no sense.

This really shouldn't be complicated, but apparently a lot of people are struggling with it. And since that includes most of our high-paid media stars, I thought I'd spell it out. This is going to be way too basic, to the point that anyone who really does understand economics will be embarrassed by it, but I'm really going to try to make it as simple as possible.

There are two broad categories of things you can sell: Those with a limited supply, and those with an unlimited supply. Airline tickets are a good example of a product with limited supply. There are only so many of them available for each flight, and once they're gone you can't sell anymore. You've made as much money as you're going to make.

On the other hand, if you're selling sneakers you're only limited by demand, and how many you can manage to produce. If demand goes up, and you can make more, you'll make more money. Some products, like MP3s on iTunes, are essentially completely unlimited since it costs nothing to make and store additional product.

Makes sense? Everyone still with me? Even the media guys?

Tickets to a hockey game have a limited supply. If a team sells all its tickets, it can't sell any more. Putting aside the (excruciatingly basic but apparently ignored) possibility of raising ticket prices, once all the tickets are sold then you can't make any more money. And since only the people with tickets are going to need parking and concessions, those are essentially limited too.

So yes, if the owner of a hockey team knows in advance that they will sell out every game, they have no business incentive to change the product.

This is a very sound argument. If it was 1983.

Sure, back when Harold Ballard was in charge the Leafs made most of their money off of gameday sales. So did every other NHL team. Yes, they sold a few jerseys and they made money off of TV rights. But most of the cash came from tickets and concessions.

So the "no incentive to win" argument probably made sense in those days, as Ballard himself confirmed.

Unfortunately for the fan-bashers, that was twenty years ago. Today, the business landscape is very different in the NHL in general, and that's especially true in Toronto.

The Toronto Star reported that the Leafs themselves estimate that by 2011, ticket sales will account for barely one-third of revenue. By then, the Leafs expect to bring in over $300 million a year from sources other than tickets.

Think about that: $300 million every year from non-ticket sources.

Today, the Leafs have revenue streams that Ballard couldn't have dreamed of. Licensed products, which used to mean t-shirts and jerseys and not much else, have expanded to virtually everything you can slap a logo on, including condos. Gameday advertising (or as they like to call it now, "corporate partnerships") brings in revenue that would be unimaginable in the 1980s. Increased competition for TV broadcasts has caused rights prices to skyrocket. Online revenue, still small today, has enormous potential for growth.

All new or greatly increased sources of revenue. All, unlike ticket sales, virtually unlimited.

You think revenue from any of those sources might go up if the Leafs won a Cup?

And that doesn't even touch on the topic of Leafs TV. While the channel isn't a money-maker yet, it's an enormous opportunity for MLSE. The Leafs are trying to follow the same model that the New York Yankees used in launching their own TV empire. The YES network launched in 2002, on the heels of the Yankees winning four World Series in the past six years.

That network's estimated worth now? Try $2 billion. With a "b".

No incentive to win? Really? Really?

Don't forget, the Leafs' primary owner is the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. As a pension, they view the team as an investment to hold onto as long as it increases in value and then eventually sell. That means they need for MLSE to grow. Profits are nice, but investments only go up in value when the company can demonstrate growth. The growth for MLSE is going to come from all of these new revenue streams.

And again, since there's virtually no limit on how many people can watch a game on TV or how many companies can cram an ad onto something, the growth potential is enormous. Especially if the team is winning.

And yet we still hear from reporters -- people who are paid to be experts about the Maple Leafs and the NHL -- who drone on and on about ticket sales. Why?

Could it really be that some of these guys haven't paid for a ticket in 20 years, and so still think about the economics of the game the same way they did back then? Or are they just intentionally misrepresenting the situation because "Blame the Dumb Leaf Fan" is a fun story to write?

I have no idea. But hopefully some basic economics will help at least a few of them see the light.

The bottom line: Arguing that Leafs ownership has no motivation to win because the building is always sold out is like arguing that the increase in concussions must be caused by players not wearing helmets. It's a nice idea, but outdated by 20 years.

The Leafs make a lot of money when they lose. But they'd make even more -- a lot more -- if they could figure out how to win.

MLSE doesn't lose because of lack of interest, they lose because they don't know how to build a winner. And you can't lay that at the feet of the loyal fans.

Surely, that's got to be it!

One thing you can count on with Sens fans: they hate Bob Cole.

While everyone can see that Cole lost his fastball years ago, most hockey fans still view him in that affectionate Pat Sumerall/Vin Scully sort of way. Not Sens fans. They hate the guy.

This all dates back to the height of Battle of Ontario. As with absolutely everything else that's ever happened to the team, this little fued was motivated by Sens fans' extreme paranoia that somebody, somewhere, might like the Leafs better. This is a city that once passed a real bylaw to ban the wearing of Leaf jerseys.

In this case, they convinced themselves that Bob Cole was a secret Leafs fan because he always yelled louder about Leaf goals than Sens goals.

It didn't help when you pointed out that maybe, just possibly, that had something to do with the fact that every Leaf goal was accompanied by really loud crowd noise (in both rinks) and Sens' goals weren't. Remember, these guys think 1927 was more recent than 1967. Logic isn't a strong point.

Add in the fact that Cole occasionally committed the unforgivable sin of mixing up completely unsimilar names like Alfredsson and Arvedson, and Sens fans were ready to declare war. Whenever the most diehard of Sens fans (i.e. the media) would mention Cole, you could count on the calls for the Canadian icon to be dumped by the CBC.

Sens fans would regularly refer to Cole and partner Harry Neale as Leafs homers, and would brag that they'd turn down the volume on CBC games and listen to Dean Brown on the radio insted.

I'll repeat that: Sens fans believed that the antidote to mindless homerism was to listen to Dean Brown.

In any event, when the CBC finally decided to pull the plug on Cole as the #1 play-by-play man and relegate him to secondary games this year, Ottawa fans were ready to take the streets in celebration.

Until last night.

Say, if Bob Cole isn't the lead announcer anymore, and only gets to do secondary games... and the Senators are usually the secondary game because everyone else still wants to watch the Leafs... then that would mean that the play-by-play on most Sens games will be done by...

Oh baby! We should have thought this through!

A tale of two GMs

It's been well-documented that the Toronto media won't let a little thing like consistency get in the way of bashing the Leafs. Damien Cox constantly contradicts himself, and was at it again this week.

Just a week ago he was ever so eager to point out that "Columbus probably won't keep (Nikita) Filatov in the bigs this season", in support of his well-documented opposition to Luke Schenn seeing any time with the Leafs. This week, he sniffled that "it's nice that Alex Pietrangelo, Zach Bogosian and Drew Doughty get to start in the NHL this fall, but that has no bearing on the Leafs and Schenn".

Why does it have no bearing? Because "nobody will even notice what those kids are doing right or wrong in those towns". Not like it would be in a hockey-crazed town like Toronto. Or, um, Columbus.

(Wait, I thought Toronto wasn't a tough place to play? Ah, never mind.)

But even at this very best, Cox has still had to go a full 24 hours before changing his mind. He's never been able to manage the theoretical Holy Grail of moronic Leaf reporting: changing his mind within a single column.

Well, move over Damien. Because Howard Berger is here, and he's gone beyond what anyone could have imagined possible.

(Fletcher) finds himself in the most envious position of any GM in the history of the club. His lucrative contract, at post-retirement age 73, expires next August, prior to the 2009-10 NHL season, and he therefore has almost no burden to engender an improved product on his watch. It is the complete antithesis of the crushing strain felt on a minute-to-minute basis by Ferguson...

I'm going to pause so you can read that again. Think it over. See any problems there?

Let's summarize:

Cliff Fletcher, who has a contract for the upcoming season only and no job security after that: "almost no burden to engender an improved product on his watch", giving him "the most envious position of any GM in the history of the club"

John Ferguson Jr, who had a contract for the upcoming season only and no job security after that: "crushing strain felt on a minute-to-minute basis"

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe Howard Berger has just changed his mind within the same paragraph. He literally describes two completely identical scenarios, then claims that they're the "antithesis" of each other.

The bar has been raised. The gauntlet has been thrown down. There is only one height left to scale. We need to see a Toronto sportswriter contradict themself in the same sentence.

I know, you're saying it's impossible. Well, they said the same about hitting 70 home runs or a sub-9.70 100 metres. Do not underestimate the talent we're dealing with here.

I really think this can happen. Do it Damien!

Introducing Maple Leaf Media Cliche Bingo!

With training camp in full swing and the new season almost upon us, the usual Maple Leaf media suspects are back in action.

Yes, it's time for yet another season of fan-bashing, well-worn cliches, recycled one-liners and decade-old material that will make Leaf fans want to slam their heads with a car door.

But as long-time readers know, I've always been one of those positive, ray-of-sunshine types. So this year I decided to make reading about the Leafs fun again.

Down Goes Brown is pleased to announce Maple Leafs Media Cliche Bingo.

Click for the full-size version.

How to play: Print out a few copies of the card. Feel free to distribute to friends, re-post on other sites, staple to downtown sign posts, etc. But please do not find high-traffic newspaper boxes and insert the cards into the sports section of major Toronto dailies. That would be wrong.

Once you have your card, simply read your favorite Leafs beat writer or columnist and cross off the squares as you go. Once you've made a bingo, celebrate by calling the writer's voicemail and yelling "Nice work, you unoriginal cliche-spewing hack!"

Which writer will be the first to score a bingo? How long will it take? Will anyone fill their entire card over the course of the season? Will Berger and Cox wage a Brady/Manning-like rivalry all year long? And will anyone manage the holy grail: Getting a bingo with one single article?

See? You're excited about the season already, aren't you?

Ottawa Sun: Everybody hates the Leafs because I say so

The "Is this the worst it's ever been" series will conclude on Monday. In the meantime, I couldn't resist posting this latest piece of Ottawa Sun goodness.

Here's a story by media critic Crash Cameron from Friday's paper, in which he trots out the old argument (much beloved in Ottawa) that the CBC should show fewer Leaf games.

Unfortunately too many broadcast decision-makers don't understand that, while the numbers can look good on paper, there's a widespread, well-entrenched hate on in our hockey nation for the Maple Leafs.

Yeah, those dumb broadcast decision-makers, so caught up in "the numbers". Always trying measure things like ratings with objective, indisputable statistics and data. What a bunch of eggheads!

I mean sure, the numbers might seem to show that the Leafs are the most popular team to watch in the country, which would make it moronic for the CBC to stop showing them. But that's only if you look at the numbers "on paper". If you crumple that paper into a little ball and throw it into your wastebasket, what do those numbers say now? Not much!

Luckily, Crash Cameron is here to set everyone straight. People hate the Leafs. And not even in the good way.

But it's not like, say, a hate for the New York Yankees where people will tune in to watch the Boston Red Sox lay a smack on A-Rod's Evil Empire. Or to see the Florida Marlins or Arizona Diamondbacks or any team beat them in the World Series.

Cameron then goes on to cite several studies that back up his theory that everyone hates the Leafs and nobody wants to watch them.

Ha ha! Just kidding. He just states his opinion as fact, and hurries on to the next paragraph.

With the Leafs, it's as much tune out as tune in. For too long (with the brief exceptions of the Sittler-Salming and the Dougie Gilmour "What a guy, I tell ya" eras) the Leafs have been a dull, hopeless hockey team, an over-ripe product that has been forced down our throats.

So bad news, Leaf fans. Those six straight years from 1998-2004 under Pat Quinn when the Leafs averaged 98 points a season? Never happened.

Which is odd, because I could swear the Leafs won a lot of playoff rounds during that time. Many of them were even against the same team. I'll have to look that up some day...

So, Crash, now that you're done making your air-tight case that CBC should dump the Leafs because everyone hates them, would you like to completely contradict your own argument in the very next paragraph?

Speaking of teams you love to hate: The Dallas Cowboys are back... Love-plus-hate added up to 12.95 million American homes and 18.6 million viewers for the Cowboys-Eagles Monday Night Football tilt. And since MNF is now on ESPN, that, by default, makes it the largest audience ever for a program on a cable network.

Sure, sure, record-breaking numbers... on paper.

Brighter days ahead for Bryan McCabe

OK, so you're Bryan McCabe.

Here's the bad news: Cliff Fletcher has called your bluff on the no-trade business, and now you're on the verge of heading out of town with your tail between your legs.

The worse news: You're going to the Florida Panthers, where hockey careers go to die.

But there is a bright side. And it's this: You, Bryan McCabe, are about to become an awesome hockey player.

That's right. Right now you may be a bumbling loser who everyone hates, but in mere weeks you'll rise from the ashes, reborn as an NHL superstar.

Yes, as per NHL rules, any player who isn't already a fan favorite (sorry, Wendel and Dougie) who is traded away from the Leafs will instantly become a far better player. That means you, Bryan.

The Canadian media will make sure it happens. After all, those "Bumbling Leafs screw up again!" stories aren't going to write themselves. So as soon as you're traded, you'll have an entire industry cheering your every minor success from now until the end of your career.

Don't believe me? Ask these guys.

Russ Courtnall

The myth: Russ Courtnall was a star, and trading him for John Kordic was one of the worst moves of all time.

The reality: Courtnall was a decent player with great speed, OK hands, generally lousy defensive skills and no grit. Was he a sniper? Not even close -- he never averaged even a point a game, despite playing in the top offensive era of all time. He had one 30-goal season, or half as many as Tom Fergus.

Overall, he was really just a very average player, and Kordic for Courtnall was a good trade.

Larry Murphy

The myth: Larry Murphy was a superstar in Pittsburgh and Detroit, but those dumb Leaf fans couldn't appreciate him and booed him out of town.

The reality: Murphy was great in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But he was just freaking terrible in Toronto. Why? No idea. But Toronto fans were right to boo Murphy.

Put it this way: the Leafs version of Murphy makes Bryan McCabe look like every other version of Murphy.

Vincent Damphousse

The myth: Damphousse had 1,200 career points. He was awesome.

The reality: Damphousse had 1,200 career points. He was pretty good.

Look, there's no arguing with 1,200 points. He did have some decent 90+ point seasons (unlike fellow superstar Courtnall). He also played for 47 years, which inflated his totals just a bit.

But do you ever notice how Damphousse is always mentioned in articles about the superstars the Leafs traded away, but never comes up in those other articles about how the Leafs never draft any star players? I wonder why that is...

Steve Sullivan

The myth: The Leafs thought he was too small to succeed in the NHL, but he went on to have seven straight 60+ seasons after leaving Toronto.

The reality: Hmm... OK, this one is pretty much true. Dammit. Let's just move on.

Kenny Jonsson

The myth: Jonsson was the best young defenceman in Toronto since Borje Salming. Trading him (as part of a package for Wendel Clark and Matthieu Schneider) was a terrible mistake, as he went on to become the star everyone knew he would be.

The reality: Jonsson had several good years with the Islanders. He was a decent all-around player. End of story. Not only wasn't he the next Borje Salming, he was barely the next Uwe Krupp.

Jonsson never played in an all-star game, was often hurt, and was out of the NHL after only ten years after being murdered by Gary Roberts during the 2004 playoffs. A fine career, sure, but nothing close to what you'd expect if you only went by his post-trade press clippings.

(Ironically, the dynamic young defenceman the Leafs gave up in that trade has been out of the NHL for four years, while the scraggly old one the Leafs got, Schneider, is still playing at a high level. For some reason Damien Cox keeps forgetting to mention this.)

And we haven't even got into the younger guys like Tuuka Rask and Brad Boyes. Shut it down, kids, you've already done more than enough! The hall of fame ceremony will be Monday.

So keep your chin up, Bryan. There are better days ahead. Go to Florida, play well enough to stay in the league, try not to score in your own net, and if it's not too much trouble score an occasional goal.

The Canadian media will take it from there.

MF37 speaks the truth

I don't normally do posts that have no content besides a link to another site. But everybody should make a point to read this post that just went up over at Bitter Leaf Fan.

It's probably the best Leafs-related blog post of the year.

These are the days of Tomas Kaberle's NTC

Let's recap what we know about Tomas Kaberle's no-trade clause (NTC).

Nothing, apparently.

Well, that's not completely true. We've heard plenty about it over the years. Let's walk through the timeline:

- When he signed his deal, there was confusion over whether it included a NTC. Shortly after resigning, he was heavily rumored to be part of a package headed to Edmonton for Chris Pronger. Perhaps due to confusion caused by those rumors (his NTC wouldn't kick in until his old deal expired), several reports listed Kaberle as not having a no-trade clause.

- Except that... Kaberle did have an NTC. So over the past year, the articles started listing Kaberle as a member of the NTC brigade, just like Sundin, McCabe and Tucker.

- Except that... Over the weekend, a handful of reports began to mention that there was a crucial exemption to the clause, and that Kaberle could be traded during the summer following a non-playoff season. In other words, he was safe at the deadline but could be moved after this season. The obvious implication was that he may be more likely to waive his clause now if the right deal came along, since he'd lose all control in a few months.

- Except that... Today, Howard Berger is reporting that this exemption on Kaberle's no-trade clause doesn't kick in until the final year of the deal -- meaning he's safe through 2010.

My head hurts.

Hey, here's a question: How is it possible that nobody knows this stuff?

The problem isn't limited to Kaberle. Pavel Kubina's clause may not be a blanket no-trade -- it may only allow him to specify a limited number of teams he could be dealt to. Or maybe not. It depends which article you're reading on which day.

And here's the twist: I don't think this is a media problem. Those guys get kicked around plenty (including here) and it's usually deserved, but not this time. This is an NHL problem. The league needs to make sure that this sort of critical information is readily available and reported correctly, and they're not doing it.

Here's Mike Brophy writing on The Hockey News web site. Not only does he report the (apparently wrong) information about Kaberle's NTC voiding after the Leafs miss the playoffs this year, but he lists Kubina as being tradable to "pre-specified teams". OK. Which teams? How many? Specified by who? And when? Is there already a list in place?

Brophy doesn't say, presumably because he doesn't know. If a senior writer for The Hockey News can't find this information, who could?

And we haven't even touched on the mass confusion over salary cap numbers. More than one reporter has taken it on himself to crunch the numbers in an attempt to estimate how much cap space the Leafs have committed to next year. That's great, but why do they need to do this in the first place? Why isn't there a page on the NHL web site that lists everything?

Can you imagine an NFL reporter not knowing where the Dallas Cowboys stood with regards to the salary cap? He'd be laughed at. But in the NHL, everyone is left to make their best guess.

This is the kind of information that's important to serious hockey fans. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any working at NHL headquarters.