blogovich

The curious case of whether Mats Sundin should stay or go

It’s a curious thing, the soap-operatic saga of whether Mats Sundin should waive his no-trade clause to enable the Toronto Maple Leafs to, essentially, try to erase the sins of the past by trading their captain tomorrow.

In an era when sports followers tend to decry the lack of loyalty in professional athletes, here we have a situation where an employee is in some quarters being denigrated for, allegedly, being disloyal.

Disloyal because he wants to stay around and, his case, prevent his team from acquiring prize building blocks by dealing him to the highest bidder.

Whether that is because he truly wants to stay, or wants to stay only because it is comfortable to stay in terms of essentially low expectations in the self-proclaimed hockey capital of the universe, only Sundin himself can know.

There’s little doubt many of the Maple Leafs’ no-trade clause notables like Sundin, Bryan McCabe, Tomas Kaberle and Darcy Tucker are, Sundin aside, “Toronto superstars” who want to stay because they would be relative nobodies in terms of fan and media attention and commercial opportunities elsewhere — particularly if they were dealt to American teams.

In short, for all the alleged pressure of playing in Toronto, Leafs players know how amazingly good they have it.

So why would anyone want to leave?

But the point Sundin makes about not believing in the “rent a player” concept now long-steeped in NHL lore is a good one.

We should not believe it. Example No. 1: Ray Bourque winning a Stanley Cup as a member of the Colorado Avalanche.

Anyone remember that? You do, because it happened. But do you, really? Did it not give you pause to read “Ray Bourque and Colorado Avalanche” in the same sentence?

They are not connected. They just happened to exist together for a time. An artificially manufactured time.

Ray Bourque is forever a Boston Bruin and while nobody has asked, it’s difficult to believe he would not rather have won a Stanley Cup as a member of the Bruins, a team to which he meant so much — and a team with which he stayed for many years (and was, too, criticized for doing so, for accepting less money to do so) when he quite likely could have gone elsewhere.

That is what is happening with Sundin, who correctly stated that the journey — not necessarily the end result of simply becoming a member of a loaded team on the cusp of Stanley Cup success — is the important thing.

Not for him the back-door route to a title. How satisfying would that really be?

If that means Sundin, and others like him, is not ever to win a Stanley Cup, so be it. Many great players — in all sports — have dealt with similar circumstances and survived.

Does it make them lesser players? Of course not. There are many marginal players, for instance, who have ridden the talents of others to multiple championships but could not, figuratively, tie the skate laces of the likes of Sundin. For those like Sundin, not winning their ultimate team-sport prize merely means they were not part of the unique circumstance, the unique melding of talent and timing, that results in championships.

There is no law stating that everyone is owed one.

Shooting down a space satellite

Those shoot first, ask questions later Americans are at it again.

Sometime this week, apparently, under the direction of Dubya, the U.S. Navy is going to try to shoot down a U.S. spy satellite carrying toxic fuel before it crashes to earth.

Chance of hitting it are pegged at about 10 per cent, from what I've read. Chances of it falling harmlessly (to us, not fish and other sea life) into an ocean or an uninhabited area are much better. Like Skylab, and other such space objects, fell harmlessly, or at least relatively so, in the past.

But no, they want to shoot the sucker down. More gunplay by the U.S. government. I'm no expert, but again, from what I've read, shooting it down will result in (potentially toxic) satellite debris potentially raining down on us, on other satellites, on whatever is in the sky and below. That's why the U.S. is bringing the space shuttle Atlantis home before it's time for target practice. They don't want to risk the shuttle being hit by debris. Or the shuttle being hit by the missile sent to knock down the satellite, one presumes.

The more you read about this, the more you get the idea the U.S. doesn't really know what it's doing. They're just going to take a pot shot and hope for the best, sounds like. And why didn't they think to have some sort of remote destruct device installed in this contraption?

Is it just me, or is this insanity? Monty Python-esque? Didn't the U.S. just recently -- in January -- get all wound up when China shot down an orbiting satellite in a test of its targetting capability? Ah, but that's THEM. Can't have that, now, can we?

The Chinese, by the way, were successful with their shot. But the band of bozos currently in charge of America is obviously too proud to ask for help from a country they've long since been doing their best to demonize.

Wayne Gretzky has 99 wins . . .

. . . as an NHL coach, it was breathlessly reported last night after his Phoenix Coyotes beat the Los Angeles Kings 4-3.

Nobody, of course, mentioned that he also has 110 losses behind the bench, has never made the playoffs and has the Coyotes currently sitting a scintillating 10th in the Western Conference standings.

Talk about the Teflon Man. Some objectivity, please.

Shaky Mason might hurt Kitchener Rangers down the line

Yeah, Steve Mason is a good goalie. I guess. Everyone seems to rate him highly though one does wonder whether he might be a tad over-rated.

And does anyone else wonder, as I do, whether Mason's propensity for giving up odd goals might hurt the Kitchener Rangers down the line?

At a very inopportune time?

He seems to give up goofy goals -- like the centre ice shot he waved at during the world junior hockey championships, among others -- and gave up another from centre ice today in the Rangers' 6-2 Ontario Hockey League win in Saginaw, Mich.

He shrugged it off as a "fluke bounce."

That's fine and dandy. But Rangers fans have to be hoping such "fluke bounces" don't happen, say, late in a tight Memorial Cup final.

Clemens and Rose: Cut from the same cloth

Roger Clemens. Pete Rose. Two of an imperfect pair. Two of the biggest, and most shallow, egomaniacs to ever step on an athletic field. Or step anywhere.

They're both so full of themselves they always come off looking foolish. And they're too self-absorbed to even notice.

I don't care that Pete Rose gambled. Nor do I care whether Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. They're tools of the trade and the sooner most folks realize that, the sooner they can get off their moral high horses and get on with life.

What I do hope, though, is that neither of these me-first individuals ever gets named to the baseball hall of fame. And not because of alleged drug use, or betting on the game. Just on general principles of good taste and class, which these two lack. I mean, Clemens, for crying out loud, is so self-absorbed the first names of all his kids begin with "K", the baseball notation for strikeout. The guy couldn't even name his own children without putting himself first in line.

Rose always bugged me because he was the type of guy who knew what his batting average was when the sun was going down, historically, on every 15th of May in Dodger Stadium while facing Don Sutton with a 2-1 count. Yeah, sure, that's why he became The Hit King (his own designation; if memory serves he trademarked it) but what a nauseating human being.

So, yeah, keep 'em both out, just for spite, because they actually need that validation so much. So let's deny them. Heck, Clemens, is so pathetic he'd likely rather go to jail for 100 years for perjury, should that happen, than be denied what he figures is his rightful place in the hall of fame.

The Leafs love being Leafs. That's why the team never progresses.

Had to howl when I read the Toronto Sun sports section today. Headline: Maple Leafs won't waver. Subhead: With trade rumours starting to swirl, those with no-trade contracts remain steadfast.

They don't wanna go, in other words.

Anyone ever have the guts to ask them why? Guys like Tomas Kaberle, Bryan McCabe, Darcy Tucker and even Mats Sundin. They'll all spin the yarn about trying to build something in Toronto, where it's taken 40 years to rebuild whatever it is they're rebuilding while teams like (currently slumping) Philadelphia can turn things around in one year via shrewd moves. And the Flyers are hardly the only such example.

Why do Leafs want to stay Leafs? Why, praytell, wouldn't they? They're coddled. There are no real expectations, other than ownership's desire to make money while over-rating and overpaying  their players. They're all superstars in terms of fan and media attention. I've long called them "Toronto superstars." In other words, a fourth-liner in Toronto gets more attention than a first-line true superstar in, say, Phoenix. OK, bad example but you get the drift. Florida. Wherever. Tampa Bay, for sure, where Vincent Lecavalier likely gets less ink than, say, Tucker does.

Leafs followers constantly say they've had it, that they won't buy tickets, won't show up for games to send the proverbial message that they're going to do the Peter Finch in Network and shout "we're not going to take it anymore."

Maybe some of them won't. But there's always someone to take their place.

What a racket, really, that MLSE and Leafs player have going. Not that this is exactly a novel thought. But it just came to mind again in reading the Sun story today.

I just couldn't stop laughing.

Leafs followers should be crying. Probably are.

Oh, and as far as the Leafs (who won in OT tonight) tanking the rest of the season (accidentally on purpose) in order to get a top, or even the top, draft pick? Good idea, but you just know, Leafs lovers, that they'd screw that up, too. They'd take top-rated Steve Stamkos and he'd turn out to be a bust. Toronto's draft history, and/or luck, isn't exactly sterling.

NBA goes where NHL should have, years ago

The NBA, according to various reports, is looking to expand to Europe with, possibly, a five-team Euro division.

Eventually.

Good for the NBA. Basketball is an international game, obviously. Look at how the internationals caught and passed the NBA stars after first getting their lunches handed them by the first (Arrogant) Dream Team in Barcelona at the 1992 Olympics. By 2000 in Sydney, the U.S. was nip and tuck to win and has been embarrassed in international play since. Well, that's not fair or right. It's not embarrassment as much as the natural order of things. Once the NBA stars started playing international teams -- just as Canada's NHL pros found -- the "awe" factor eventually disappeared and the internationals caught up.

That's good for a sport.

Back to the point, though. The NBA is talking about European expansion.

Meanwhile, the NHL, which has featured international players for a longer time, continues to wallow in the alleged wisdom of placing teams in non-traditional markets in the U.S. rather than going where the game is welcome. Like Europe.

No wonder the NBA is successfull and the NHL, in comparison, not.

Here's at least one good thing coming out of the writers' strike

Not that I care that much. As far at TV goes, viewing -- sports and documentaries -- isn't/wasn't affected.

I will say this, though. Due to the writers' strike, at least one awards show, the Golden Globes, was reduced to a press conference.

All you really need, I say. To each his own, but I really don't see the point of televised awards shows, or televised sports drafts, for that matter. I just can't see devoting all that time to watching it. And I don't think I'm alone. A Sun Media poll in Canada, for instance, revealed that 80 per cent of respondents DIDN'T watch the recent Grammy Awards. Why bother? It's just an excuse for people to show off their clothes or hairstyles or make fools of themselves and get more undeserved media coverage.

The results alone are fine for me, a quick scan, if that (particularly on the Grammies which are about anything but real music).

All of  which is why I like what the Ontario Hockey League did a few years ago. The OHL ditched its formal draft and went to an Internet format.

Time for renewed respect for the 1972 Miami Dolphins

With the New England Patriots having become just another 18-1 team (joining the Chicago Bears and San Francisco 49ers, who did it while winning the Super Bowl), it’s time to renew respect for the unbeaten 1972 Miami Dolphins.

And to stop massaging the myth that those Dolphins continue to “dine out” on their accomplishment. The likely reason Jim Kiick and others from that team allegedly “dine out” on 17-0 is because the media keeps asking them about it. Maybe next time, they should hang up the phone.

And about the annual champagne celebration, which will now be said to have waited until the last possible moment yesterday. Most people agree it’s urban legend, or at least conducted by just a few Dolphins who still happen to live within a stone’s throw of each other. Many athletes, believe it or not, folks, move on and do other things once their careers are over and it’s highly unlikely — and would indeed be ridiculous and pathetic — if 40 or more members of the Dolphins annually got together to celebrate the annual preservation of their unique efforts.

But back to the point. Here’s the thing(s) about the nauseatingly repetitive points that have continually been brought up recently to denigrate those Dolphins, often by sports writers who either want their era to be the best, or were there, either professionally or as young football followers at the time, and should know better.

• Yes, the Dolphins had a relatively easy schedule. Yeah, we know. The issue was brought up back then, too. But they didn’t draw it up, so don’t blame them.
• The Dolphins won their three playoff games by a combined total of 17 points (no doubt they planned it that way?). True. But two things about that are never brought up. Well, three. Last one first. They won them all. A W is a W. Secondly, few seem to remember that Miami won the AFC championship game, beating Pittsburgh, 21-17 IN PITTSBURGH. Yes, due to the looney tunes NFL system then in place where home field was decided on a rotation basis, unbeaten Miami had to go on the road to face the 11-3 Steelers (who would soon replace the Dolphins as the dynasty of the decade).
Thirdly, the Super Bowl, won 14-7 by underdog (yes, underdog) Miami — you see, back then, the vestiges of the old, arrogant NFL could still not bring itself to favour a former AFL team, no matter how good — was not nearly as close as the score indicates.

Miami completely dominated the game. Larry Csonka, the bull in the backfield, ran over the Redskins all day. The “Over the Hill Gang” Redskins became just that, barely getting a sniff of Miami territory because the Dolphins’ so-called No Name defence completely stifled quarterback Billy Kilmer and running back Larry Brown. And the only reason the Redskins scored a touchdown was because of Garo Yepremian’s infamous volleyball-style interception “pass” to Washington’s Mike Bass on a blocked field goal attempt that Bass then returned 49 yards for a touchdown late in the mismatch. Had the kick not been blocked, Miami would likely have put a nice exclamation point on its 17-0 season with a 17-0 victory.

Oh, and Miami went 15-2 the next season, destroying the Minnesota Vikings 24-7 in the Super Bowl after hammering the Oakland Raiders 27-10 in the AFC championship game.

Good enough for ya?

By the way, that 27-10 Miami win over Oakland avenged a 12-7 loss at Oakland in game 2 of that regular season that ended Miami’s 18-0 run.

Which, if nothing else, proves how difficult it is to go 19-0 in the NFL.

And that’s not to take anything away from the Patriots, either. Let’s not forget that they do hold the NFL record for a winning streak, 21 games spread over the 2003-2004 seasons. Further info: 

As for this year’s run, what a performance over the entire season, though they came up one game short (and this is one person who, while defending the ‘72 Dolphins, wanted to see the Pats go 19-0).

Such sustained excellence is to be admired and even though they couldn’t finish the task, the 2007 Patriots should go down in history for, yes, losing at the end but more importantly, for getting there in the way that they did.

One final question, though. WHAT was Bill Belichick thinking? I figured the Pats might be in trouble when Belichick came out wearing a RED hoodie instead of his usual grey getup.

Bad karma, Billy boy. Why tempt fate? And see? Look what happened.