PDA

View Full Version : Welcome to Loserville



Roogsy
11-01-2009, 09:16 PM
Unforunately, this only feeds the trolls on this board about the situation in Toronto with it's sports franchises, but really the evidence is overwhelming.

And considering 3 of the 6 major professional franchises in question are owned by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, it is becoming increasingly evident that they are part of the problem, and not in the way that is normally argued by uninformed people on this and other boards. MLSE spends money like it's going out of style, that has never been the problem...the problem is that they just don't know how to put together winning franchises and as long as they are involved in our favourite teams here in Toronto, we will continue to underperform and support teams that fail to bring silverware to this city.

We need fresh blood running teams here.

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/bill_lankhof/2009/11/01/TNews110109.jpg&size=248x186

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/bill_lankhof/2009/11/01/11594956-sun.html

bimmer
11-01-2009, 09:30 PM
Correlation does not imply causation.

It's WAY TOO flippant IMO to simply say "These teams suck, These teams are owned by MLSE, thus MLSE is the problem."

billyfly
11-01-2009, 09:33 PM
Here's another one:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=23881

Shakes McQueen
11-01-2009, 09:34 PM
"They don't know how to put winning franchises together" is such a broad statement though.

The Leafs, as of five years ago, were a winning team. The Raptors have made the playoffs 2 of the 3 years Colangelo has been in charge. The Argos won a Grey Cup a few seasons ago, and were the class of the league at that point.

The only team that has really been an unmitigated disaster for a long, long time now, is the Blue Jays. TFC is still too young to make such a sweeping declaration. And I'm pretty sure the Rock are a good lacrosse team, no?

When people call Toronto "Loserville", I think what they mean is we haven't won an actual championship in a while. But when you change your metric for "success" to simply winning a trophy, and start to look around North America, you realize there are TONS of cities in the same boat as us - many of which have diverse ownership of their sports teams.

With that in mind, I'm actually encouraged by MLSE's recent moves with their teams. They've finally brought in someone independent and respected to run their hockey team, and have finally started to lay the foundation for a top-class scouting department. They hired a respected basketball guy to run their basketball team, and given him autonomy to do whatever he wants to do with the roster. Regardless of the lack of on-field success, the MLSE Borg hive-mind at least seems to have understood how important investing in a grass surface was to the fans, and the future on-field success of the team.

I don't think things are as dreary as people make it sound, but Torontonians seem to have this innate need to be self-deprecating when it comes to sports.

- Scott

Suds
11-01-2009, 09:34 PM
Correlation does not imply causation.

It's WAY TOO flippant IMO to simply say "These teams suck, These teams are owned by MLSE, thus MLSE is the problem."

True, but one thing we do know is we can't say "These teams are great, These teams are owned by MLSE, thus MLSE is the reason"

Shakes McQueen
11-01-2009, 09:36 PM
True, but one thing we do know is we can't say "These teams are great, These teams are owned by MLSE, thus MLSE is the reason"

Right. I think his point is that giving credit/ire to the ownership for the product on the ice/pitch/court is probably implying causation where there is none.

- Scott

dclaro
11-01-2009, 09:38 PM
leafs: they put in a hockey guy with full control lets see if things change after his contract is up, although the really slow start is surprising

raptors: in a slump right now, but they should at least squeak in, and they should be on the rise for the next few years

jays:see yankees and red sox

argos: i think the problem might be with ownership, but i dont follow them enough, although with so many teams to compete against in toronto, their viewed as second tier since we put the american leagues that other teams are in on a higher level than an all canadian league

TFC: maybe we should get a better scouting system, if we have one at all right now, i think mojo is our only scout as he's busy enough with other matters

Toronto rock: they had their dynasty, things change but they'll be back

my quick anaylsis

wzhxvy
11-01-2009, 09:43 PM
I am a critic of MLSE but I do not think the solution is looking or seeking new ownership. I think MLSE to their credit, have invested significantly in infrastructre and their sports properties. The fact that we are in Canada and the three associated strikes with playing in Canada: 1. ie it is more difficult for Canadian based teams to attract sports talent when we compete against larger media markets in the US primarily, 2. we compete against nice weather markets in the US, 3. taxes are lower in the US.

If I ignore the above three important factors, I would agree (and I talked about this before) that MLSE is a problem because of how they value success and how they are rewarded. For MLSE, its all about year over year growth in revenues and profits, its not about winning. Of course they want to win, but they are not willing to apply all their resources and take risks to win...they want to win but only within the parameters above.

I think a solution here would be for new leadership at the top within MLSE, because I think this is a problem with leadership all the way to Richard Peddie and the board. They need to change how they value success, and instead of a bean counter like Peddie, they need leadership that is compensated based on actually winning. They need someone running this who evaluates success, not in pure year over year dollar growth, but in terms of franchise valuation, future TV/marketing contract value...someone who can put a story together. I think MLSE leadership is the problem, and unfortunately that leadership has put similar minded leadership within its properties ie Anselmi for TFC.

Roogsy
11-01-2009, 10:01 PM
"They don't know how to put winning franchises together" is such a broad statement though.

The Leafs, as of five years ago, were a winning team. The Raptors have made the playoffs 2 of the 3 years Colangelo has been in charge. The Argos won a Grey Cup a few seasons ago, and were the class of the league at that point.


I suppose this falls under what your definition of a "winning franchise" would be.

A record of .501 could be considered "winning" and under that unimpressive scenario (or close to it) I would classify most of the seasons you describe.

The Raptors have never qualified higher than 5th for the playoffs and that was only once, the other times they qualified 6th through 8th. Their best winning percentage has been .573, nothing spectacular. They've made the playoffs 5 times and only made it out of the first round once. This is a capable team, not a contending one. I would not classify it as "winning".

The Argos are a team that I refuse to use for comparison purposes. They play in a league of 8 teams. You have to really screw up not to make the playoffs.

When people refer to "winners" they aren't referring to winning 50% +1. They are referring to teams that continuously show contention, that regularly post winning seasons on a percentage basis, and that regularly win championships. What team in Toronto qualifies when applying that less generous application of the term "winning"?

To "know" how to put a winning franchise together is to have a trackrecord that people can look to and say "they know what they are doing, they have a winning formula". I don't see that at MLSE. At no point has it ever appeared that they have had a plan in place. I can't agree with you Scott, I stand by my statement.


I don't think things are as dreary as people make it sound, but Torontonians seem to have this innate need to be self-deprecating when it comes to sports.

This is not about being self-depricating...at some point you have to stop looking at intangibles and start looking at what is factually in front of you. Regardless if they are even about to embark on the greated sporting decade in this city's history (riiiiight)...there is nothing in our past to support any other conclusion and so far, there is nothing in our current position to indicate that is actually going to happen, and that is all we have in our hands when called to give our opinion about the state of sports in Toronto. That being the case, you then look at the factors and pass judgement. I don't see how MLSE can possibly have a passing grade in anyone's eyes.

I'd like to point out that I have always been one of the people on this board that has stood up for MLSE with regards to giving them credit for bringing TFC to Toronto. But this is no longer about giving credit for identifying opportunities...this is about recognizing whether any particular ownership has shown any ability to put together a winning franchise that it's fanbase can be proud of. Is there any evidence to that effect?

dclaro
11-01-2009, 10:02 PM
I am a critic of MLSE but I do not think the solution is looking or seeking new ownership. I think MLSE to their credit, have invested significantly in infrastructre and their sports properties. The fact that we are in Canada and the three associated strikes with playing in Canada: 1. ie it is more difficult for Canadian based teams to attract sports talent when we compete against larger media markets in the US primarily, 2. we compete against nice weather markets in the US, 3. taxes are lower in the US.

If I ignore the above three important factors, I would agree (and I talked about this before) that MLSE is a problem because of how they value success and how they are rewarded. For MLSE, its all about year over year growth in revenues and profits, its not about winning. Of course they want to win, but they are not willing to apply all their resources and take risks to win...they want to win but only within the parameters above.

I think a solution here would be for new leadership at the top within MLSE, because I think this is a problem with leadership all the way to Richard Peddie and the board. They need to change how they value success, and instead of a bean counter like Peddie, they need leadership that is compensated based on actually winning. They need someone running this who evaluates success, not in pure year over year dollar growth, but in terms of franchise valuation, future TV/marketing contract value...someone who can put a story together. I think MLSE leadership is the problem, and unfortunately that leadership has put similar minded leadership within its properties ie Anselmi for TFC.
i just don't like the pension owning a controlling stake in mlse, as for tanenbaum, i dont know what o think of him seeing as he's not a media whore and rarely hear him, and TD bank the money they make off mlse is pocket change compared to what they make with their banking operations

Beach_Red
11-01-2009, 10:04 PM
I think a solution here would be for new leadership at the top within MLSE, because I think this is a problem with leadership all the way to Richard Peddie and the board.

I think you're right - once it moves to the level of a faceless board, that's a problem. Most successful teams have a name attatched to the top decision-maker.

And there's really no point in wishing for new ownership because that isn't going to happan, but MLSE does respond to fans' demands - we've seen it with Leafs often enough.

So it's important for the fans to make the right demands. Right now demanding an experienced coach with a winning track record will get results. I think we've already seen it, I think this talk that the next coach has to have MLS experience is the board responding to fans' demands.

billyfly
11-01-2009, 10:06 PM
This topic consumes most of my free thinking time. How is it that EVERY team is sucking donkey ballz so bad?

People are starting to notice it more and more even though it was the same this time last year. There have been a couple of other threads on the same topic.

What did this city do to incur the wrath of the sports gods??

Carts
11-01-2009, 10:10 PM
In professional sports, success should be judged in championships...

Yes, every year "goals" will change based on the current state of the team, but winning your league's championship is what makes a 'franchise' successful or not...

In my opinion, MLSE sees profit as success. They run their teams as businesses, and the goal of a business is to make money...

Look at Mike Illich and the Red Wings. He purchased the team for $8-million, but did not start running it as a "for profit" business. The Red Wings were spending 2-3 times more money than they were generating in the first few years of his ownership. He told investors the team was building the foundation to be a successfull franchise (which he always states is winning championships). Now they are not only a title threat every year, they make money hand over fist...

Winning championships should come first - if you do that, the money will follow...

In Toronto, its seems like money comes first - if it didn't, the board at MLSE would have been turfed years ago as their teams don't win. But they're kept, because their first goal is attained, making money...

Carts...

Roogsy
11-01-2009, 10:13 PM
In professional sports, success should be judged in championships...


Period. End of story.

This is the ultimate (and in many ways ONLY) way to judge a sport franchise/ownership.

bimmer
11-01-2009, 10:21 PM
Period. End of story.

This is the ultimate (and in many ways ONLY) way to judge a sport franchise/ownership.

Other than the Leafs, it's unfair to judge the "success" of MLSE's franchises, as TFC is barely 3 years old and the Raps a mere 15. The level of play in the MLS has grown considerably since the days of expansion teams making the finals in their first year and there are NBA teams far older than the Raptors that have never won a championship.

Beach_Red
11-01-2009, 10:31 PM
Other than the Leafs, it's unfair to judge the "success" of MLSE's franchises, as TFC is barely 3 years old and the Raps a mere 15. The level of play in the MLS has grown considerably since the days of expansion teams making the finals in their first year and there are NBA teams far older than the Raptors that have never won a championship.


Except they often have the same problems. Someone on here made a joke that the Leafs had the Muskoka 5 and TFC has the Scarborough 5. The players often run the teams because the fan pick them as favourites (it may be a little different with the Raptors) and the ownership give them big contracts and when it doesn;t work out they just replace the management.

We are starting to see some of the Leaf problems showing up in the way TFC is run. It's really just management responding to fans' demands. So, Danny Dichio get a guaranteed coaching position without ever having coached a game. Let's hope he's good.

billyfly
11-01-2009, 10:38 PM
Period. End of story.

This is the ultimate (and in many ways ONLY) way to judge a sport franchise/ownership.

I agree but think of how many footy teams have gone 100 years or more with zilch.

wzhxvy
11-01-2009, 10:39 PM
Except they often have the same problems. Someone on here made a joke that the Leafs had the Muskoka 5 and TFC has the Scarborough 5. The players often run the teams because the fan pick them as favourites (it may be a little different with the Raptors) and the ownership give them big contracts and when it doesn;t work out they just replace the management.

We are starting to see some of the Leaf problems showing up in the way TFC is run. It's really just management responding to fans' demands. So, Danny Dichio get a guaranteed coaching position without ever having coached a game. Let's hope he's good.

In all fairness though...if they didnt so totally screw up how they handled DD's last year, they would not have had to do that. They mismanaged a situation, it leaked to the media and supporters (from DD sources, I am not stupid enough to think the leak just happened), and they corrected course by over-reacting. If they had just treated him well, had a proper send off at the end of the season, then they would be perfectly entitled to hire him or not based on his merits for the following season.

Roogsy
11-01-2009, 11:08 PM
I agree but think of how many footy teams have gone 100 years or more with zilch.

It is unfortunate. And in no way would I mean this in any disrespectful way...but in what way shape or form would they be considered "winning" franchises?

This isn't about staying loyal to your team win or lose, this is about recognizing the championship quality of a franchise. If you support a small team that has rarely or never won anything, that's fine and you should be proud. But in the final accounting, they are not a "winning" team. Winning isn't something that can be subjective, it's a condition that is or isn't.

bimmer
11-01-2009, 11:12 PM
It is unfortunate. And in no way would I mean this in any disrespectful way...but in what way shape or form would they be considered "winning" franchises?

This isn't about staying loyal to your team win or lose, this is about recognizing the championship quality of a franchise. If you support a small team that has rarely or never won anything, that's fine and you should be proud. But in the final accounting, they are not a "winning" team. Winning isn't something that can be subjective, it's a condition that is or isn't.

Like I said, other than the Leafs, it's way too early to call MLSE's teams 'losing' franchises based on your standards.

Roogsy
11-01-2009, 11:12 PM
Other than the Leafs, it's unfair to judge the "success" of MLSE's franchises, as TFC is barely 3 years old and the Raps a mere 15. The level of play in the MLS has grown considerably since the days of expansion teams making the finals in their first year and there are NBA teams far older than the Raptors that have never won a championship.

This isn't about every franchise in MLSE needing to win, this is about the evidence that is piling on that ownership as to how it manages it's teams. When you only own one team, the chances of winning are obviously slim. But when you own 3 major professional teams, and a fourth team that plays in the 2nd division, and NONE win anything, then you have to start looking at the ownership. That kind of participation requires some level of success at some point just because of the odds. When even the odds are in your favour and you STILL can't find success...then the problem isn't the degree of difficulty of winning something, the problem is that you are underachieving.

And just for the record, this isn't about TFC per say. But TFC's inadequacies does add into the case building against MLSE. Seattle is a fine example of the kind of success that a properly managed team can achieve in the league TFC plays in. If San Jose makes the playoffs next year and we don't...we will officially be the worst expansion franchise in MLS history. That this is even a possibility speaks to the inadequacies of MLSE. Especially as we are about to embark on more expansion in MLS and it gets harder and harder to get into the playoffs.

Beach_Red
11-01-2009, 11:29 PM
In all fairness though...if they didnt so totally screw up how they handled DD's last year, they would not have had to do that. They mismanaged a situation, it leaked to the media and supporters (from DD sources, I am not stupid enough to think the leak just happened), and they corrected course by over-reacting. If they had just treated him well, had a proper send off at the end of the season, then they would be perfectly entitled to hire him or not based on his merits for the following season.

Well, we don't know if all he wanted was, "a proper send off." It does sound like the team encouraged him to pursue coaching - he has to do something to make money still - but it does appear bungled. Of course, MLSE like any other big organization is divided into factions and there are many agendas at work. Some of them are ex-players who made the move into management and some are bean-counters who are maybe better at navigating the corporate waters.

We'll never know what happened there, but that's just an example.

Over the years we have seen many, many examples of Leaf fans running good players out of town and over-valueing other players. Or, I should say, we have seen this ownership appease the fans time and time again.

Are we seeing it with TFC?

(honestly, I don't know enough about soccer to be able to tell if that's what's going on)

Beach_Red
11-01-2009, 11:35 PM
And just for the record, this isn't about TFC per say. But TFC's inadequacies does add into the case building against MLSE.


Especially because we're starting to see a pattern develop with the teams. TFC had many problems this year that sound so familiar when talking about the Leafs - bad attitudes, cliques in the dressing room, lack of leadership and so on. Does ownership have anything to do with that?

Roogsy
11-01-2009, 11:42 PM
Especially because we're starting to see a pattern develop with the teams. TFC had many problems this year that sound so familiar when talking about the Leafs - bad attitudes, cliques in the dressing room, lack of leadership and so on. Does ownership have anything to do with that?

I would say yes...because the strategies in place to bring in players sometimes emphasize issues that don't help on scoreboard.

Also, the issues that young teams like TFC and the Raptors suffer from no longer can be attributed to "expansion" problems. After a certain point, it falls on how the organization is being run.

So while it is unfair to demand "championships" from these teams, it is also unfair to ask fans to continuously support teams that fail to show progress, competitiveness or contention.

I tell you this...if TFC does not make the playoffs by it's fourth year, it will no longer be debateable if they are a failure, it will be an accomplished fact.

bimmer
11-01-2009, 11:45 PM
This isn't about every franchise in MLSE needing to win, this is about the evidence that is piling on that ownership as to how it manages it's teams. When you only own one team, the chances of winning are obviously slim. But when you own 3 major professional teams, and a fourth team that plays in the 2nd division, and NONE win anything, then you have to start looking at the ownership. That kind of participation requires some level of success at some point just because of the odds. When even the odds are in your favour and you STILL can't find success...then the problem isn't the degree of difficulty of winning something, the problem is that you are underachieving.

And just for the record, this isn't about TFC per say. But TFC's inadequacies does add into the case building against MLSE. Seattle is a fine example of the kind of success that a properly managed team can achieve in the league TFC plays in. If San Jose makes the playoffs next year and we don't...we will officially be the worst expansion franchise in MLS history. That this is even a possibility speaks to the inadequacies of MLSE. Especially as we are about to embark on more expansion in MLS and it gets harder and harder to get into the playoffs.

I understand what you're saying, and for all we know, you could be right. However, I still maintain that it is unfair to blame MLSE simply because they own the clubs, without having any REAL evidence to back it up.

Look at cities like Philadelphia, Seattle, Cleveland and Washington whose professional teams are run/owned exclusive of one another... yet they have gone through far longer championship droughts than we have. I don't think we should simply lay the blame on the one common denominator between our teams. We should look at them as separate entities.

Roogsy
11-01-2009, 11:52 PM
I find that argument a little lacking.

Most of those cities do not have the size, money or support that Toronto gives it's teams.

While we should be contending with cities like Chicago, Boston, Houston and New York, we intentionally put ourselves in the same category as smaller cities like Cleveland, Washington and Seattle? That's like comparing London against Cardiff.

Philly is the only city I would say Toronto SHOULD compare itself to, but this is where the argument falls off the tracks. While the Eagles continuously fall short of actually winning championships, they are constantly contenders, and regularly make the playoffs.

Same with the 76ers.

And lest you forget who is in the World Series this year? And who won it last year?

This is the ultimate point...either we are a world class city or we are not. We continuously underachieve when compared against cities we SHOULD be similar to and instead accept mediocrity and allow the inadequacies of 2nd tier teams to be an acceptable bar to aim for.

Being the biggest city in Canada, with the most money and the kind of sponsorship, television and gate revenue that our teams produce...that is simply not an acceptable justification for our underachievement. We need to hold our teams accountable to the level of success they SHOULD be achieving all things considered.

Whoop
11-02-2009, 12:03 AM
This more of an aside... but sports related.

Add to the fact that Toronto has lost two Olympic bids. (Not to mention an Expo bid.)

While Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal have all won Olympic bids. Hell, even Edmonton and Victoria have had a Commonwealth Games. And Winnipeg has had a Pan Am Games. Edmonton has even had an IAAF World Championship in Athletics.

Toronto has never held any sort of significant multi-sport event, which ties in with the lack of athletic infrastructure, which could be a smaller part of the lack of Champions from the Toronto area. The biggest significant world event that was held in Toronto was the World Indoor Championship in '93.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 12:10 AM
I would say yes...because the strategies in place to bring in players sometimes emphasize issues that don't help on scoreboard.



What issues do you think the strategies emphasize?

I can tell you when it comes to the Leafs I believe that for years MLSE gave the fans what they wanted. I was shocked back in the early 90's when Leaf fans were calling for Doug Gilmour for MVP. Gilmour was a hard-working player, a solid second line player, but people in Toronto were talking like he was Mario Lemieux (who did win the MVP that year). After the Leafs traded away Wendel Clarke (in a good trade that got them Sundin) the fans never got over it so they brought Clarke back. They brought Gilmour back, too. these were things Leaf fans asked for and received that weren't good for the team.

Since TFC started people told me that soccer fans were more sophisticated and wouldn't pick favourites like that. Like I said, I don't know enough about soccer to be able to tell, but what I saw with Dichio sure looked like Leaf fans.

bimmer
11-02-2009, 12:25 AM
I find that argument a little lacking.

Most of those cities do not have the size, money or support that Toronto gives it's teams.

While we should be contending with cities like Chicago, Boston, Houston and New York, we intentionally put ourselves in the same category as smaller cities like Cleveland, Washington and Seattle? That's like comparing London against Cardiff.

Philly is the only city I would say Toronto SHOULD compare itself to, but this is where the argument falls off the tracks. While the Eagles continuously fall short of actually winning championships, they are constantly contenders, and regularly make the playoffs.

Same with the 76ers.

And lest you forget who is in the World Series this year? And who won it last year?

This is the ultimate point...either we are a world class city or we are not. We continuously underachieve when compared against cities we SHOULD be similar to and instead accept mediocrity and allow the inadequacies of 2nd tier teams to be an acceptable bar to aim for.

Being the biggest city in Canada, with the most money and the kind of sponsorship, television and gate revenue that our teams produce...that is simply not an acceptable justification for our underachievement. We need to hold our teams accountable to the level of success they SHOULD be achieving all things considered.

The professional leagues that we are contending about (excluding MLB which MLSE doesn't partake in anyways) all operate within a cap, so there's not much that ownership can do that would result in a significant advantage over the smaller market teams. And the current states of franchises such as the Knicks, Mets, Clippers, Texans, etc. should hint that big markets do not necessarily equal success.

As for Philly, you yourself claimed that championships were in many ways the ONLY method of judging a team's success. By that standard, Philly should be considered a failure, seeing as how until the Phillies won the series last year, the Flyers, 76ers, Eagles and Phillies had not won a championship in roughly 30 years (or never). If you see Philly as a winning city, why not give Toronto 30 years as well?

Whoop
11-02-2009, 12:30 AM
I remember as a kid watching Dr. J and the 76ers beating the Lakers for a NBA championship.

At least those all Philly teams have at least been in a couple of finals since the 80s.

I think the point that Roogsy is making is not so much $$$ decisions but personnel decisions. From recent appointees like Rob Babcock, JFJ, and JP Ricciardi to past hires like Isiah Thomas to Mike Nykoluk.

Shakes McQueen
11-02-2009, 01:20 AM
I suppose this falls under what your definition of a "winning franchise" would be.

A record of .501 could be considered "winning" and under that unimpressive scenario (or close to it) I would classify most of the seasons you describe.

The Leafs, under MLSE ownership, made the playoffs six seasons in a row, right up until the lockout year. In that time, they got all the way to the Conference Finals twice.

None of these years were anything close to .500 seasons.


The Raptors have never qualified higher than 5th for the playoffs and that was only once, the other times they qualified 6th through 8th. Their best winning percentage has been .573, nothing spectacular. They've made the playoffs 5 times and only made it out of the first round once. This is a capable team, not a contending one. I would not classify it as "winning".Well, I mean, this is kind of mincing language. Being over .500 means you have a "winning" record, and I can't really parse the difference between "capable" and "contending". If you make the post-season in a sport, you are considered to be contending for the trophy.

The Raptors' playoff seasons were closer to .500 (including one that was basically exactly .500), yes.


The Argos are a team that I refuse to use for comparison purposes. They play in a league of 8 teams. You have to really screw up not to make the playoffs.Yes, which is why I only mentioned that they won the league - not that they made the post-season. Winning the Grey Cup is not a cake walk.


When people refer to "winners" they aren't referring to winning 50% +1. They are referring to teams that continuously show contention, that regularly post winning seasons on a percentage basis, and that regularly win championships. What team in Toronto qualifies when applying that less generous application of the term "winning"?There are extremely few teams that "regularly win championships" - if that is the metric, then there are several dozen "Loserville"'s all over the place - which was kind of my point to begin with. As far as just being in contention, I pointed out that the Leafs were in contention for the greater part of the last decade, and only fell off in the past few years (since the cap was instituted).


To "know" how to put a winning franchise together is to have a trackrecord that people can look to and say "they know what they are doing, they have a winning formula". I don't see that at MLSE. At no point has it ever appeared that they have had a plan in place. I can't agree with you Scott, I stand by my statement.This is kind of speaking to the part of my initial post, where I said I was encouraged by recent moves MLSE have made with their basketball and hockey teams. You're right, in the past few years especially, MLSE have looked planless, and inept.


Regardless if they are even about to embark on the greated sporting decade in this city's history (riiiiight)...there is nothing in our past to support any other conclusion and so far, there is nothing in our current position to indicate that is actually going to happen, and that is all we have in our hands when called to give our opinion about the state of sports in Toronto. That being the case, you then look at the factors and pass judgement. I don't see how MLSE can possibly have a passing grade in anyone's eyes.You're kind of straying into strawman territory here - who here said anything about embarking on a "great sporting decade"? And who said they get a passing grade?

I stated that I was encouraged by some of MLSE's recent moves, in giving unfettered power to real sports people, with a solid pedigree. I'm encouraged by the signings the Raptors made in the off-season. I'm encouraged by Brian Burke's efforts to actually create a solid scouting program for the Leafs (something they've sorely lacked in the cap-age).

They appear to be actually trying to build a system, instead of annual band-aid solutions to keep people paying. This doesn't mean I give them a passing grade - it means I'm encouraged by the potential for them to earn a passing grade in the near future.

They appear to be learning - we've moved beyond the era of inept shitheads like Isaiah Thomas and John Ferguson Jr., and into the era of GM's who don't have to answer to a board of directors for every single thing they do, and GM's who have an actual pedigree of success.

I find that encouraging. If you remain cynical, then to each their own. :D

- Scott

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 01:28 AM
The professional leagues that we are contending about (excluding MLB which MLSE doesn't partake in anyways) all operate within a cap, so there's not much that ownership can do that would result in a significant advantage over the smaller market teams. And the current states of franchises such as the Knicks, Mets, Clippers, Texans, etc. should hint that big markets do not necessarily equal success.

As for Philly, you yourself claimed that championships were in many ways the ONLY method of judging a team's success. By that standard, Philly should be considered a failure, seeing as how until the Phillies won the series last year, the Flyers, 76ers, Eagles and Phillies had not won a championship in roughly 30 years (or never). If you see Philly as a winning city, why not give Toronto 30 years as well?

Well...if you count pennants and conferences, all those teams have won much more in those 30 years.

And the Leafs are now headed for their 43rd year without a championship. At this point, I would indeed take division winnings at least.

However, your math is wrong with Philly. The 76ers won an NBA championship in 1983, making their last major championship 25 years (not 30) before the Phillies won the World Series last year.

Still, since 1967 (the last time the Leafs hoisted the cup), excluding the CFL, let's compare championship winnings between Philly and Toronto.

76ers, 1 Championship
Phillies, 2 World Series
Flyers, 2 Stanley Cups

And in between, they had the Eagles challenging constantly in the NFL winning many conference titles and they didn't have to suffer long stretches of non-playoffs, regularly qualifying every year. It was evident because of the demands of the fans that the teams made respectable efforts each year to AT LEAST contend for a championship exemplified by constant appearances in the finals by ALL their major sports teams.

Since 1967 we long-suffering fans in Toronto have won:

Blue Jays, 2 World Series





That is all.

When was the last time a Toronto team challenged for a championship? None of the MLSE teams, regardless of history, age, budget, roster, cap space or any other excuse that keeps creeping up when apologizing for their failures, none of their teams have even come close to contending for a championship.

So we don't even measure up to Philadelphia. Neither in championships, nor in seeing our teams qualify for playoffs, seeing them win divisions or conference titles in ANY sport, nor in seeing our teams post winning records or contend for championships.

I will take Philly's record over ours any day.

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 01:33 AM
I find that encouraging. If you remain cynical, then to each their own. :D

I think this is what it boils down to.

I have never been in this camp. I see nothing to bring me hope. I see the same thing I have seen over and over.

I have been one of those fans that for 30 years has waited for the Leafs to do something.

I have been a Raptor season ticket holder, finally giving up seasons seats because it's so damn easy to get tickets these days, there was no reasonable advantage to paying up front for so many games.

I bought TFC seasons the day they went on sale.

I was always one of those that didn't care if MLSE owned the teams, in fact, I defended them on this very board.

But seeing MLSE fuck up TFC the way they have....I've had it. They pushed me to the other side. I am now full-on MLSE-sucks to the nth degree. They are magnificent businessmen...they SUCK at running teams. End of story.

By the way, getting back to the point of the thread, this isn't an MLSE hate thread, this is a thread about Toronto's championship woes. Being that MLSE owns half the teams in this town, it sort of includes them by default, however, this goes beyond MLSE.

Shakes McQueen
11-02-2009, 01:38 AM
Oh thank the Lord - immediately after making that long post, I actually said out loud "oh fuck, it's going to be a long night of back and forth", haha. :D

- Scott

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 01:48 AM
LOL!

I gotta work tomorrow dude.

Redpunkfiddle
11-02-2009, 07:49 AM
This more of an aside... but sports related.

Add to the fact that Toronto has lost two Olympic bids. (Not to mention an Expo bid.)

While Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal have all won Olympic bids. Hell, even Edmonton and Victoria have had a Commonwealth Games. And Winnipeg has had a Pan Am Games. Edmonton has even had an IAAF World Championship in Athletics.

Toronto has never held any sort of significant multi-sport event, which ties in with the lack of athletic infrastructure, which could be a smaller part of the lack of Champions from the Toronto area. The biggest significant world event that was held in Toronto was the World Indoor Championship in '93.

Side note: Toronto is tipped to win the 2015 Pan Am games. Watch for the announcement this Friday the 6th

billyfly
11-02-2009, 09:31 AM
It is unfortunate. And in no way would I mean this in any disrespectful way...but in what way shape or form would they be considered "winning" franchises?

This isn't about staying loyal to your team win or lose, this is about recognizing the championship quality of a franchise. If you support a small team that has rarely or never won anything, that's fine and you should be proud. But in the final accounting, they are not a "winning" team. Winning isn't something that can be subjective, it's a condition that is or isn't.

I meant more that I feel like crap in this prolonged losing streak and I can't imagine those cities with teams that have never won anything.

I should have explained myself better.

Section 110
11-02-2009, 09:55 AM
Well...if you count pennants and conferences, all those teams have won much more in those 30 years.

And the Leafs are now headed for their 43rd year without a championship. At this point, I would indeed take division winnings at least.

However, your math is wrong with Philly. The 76ers won an NBA championship in 1983, making their last major championship 25 years (not 30) before the Phillies won the World Series last year.

Still, since 1967 (the last time the Leafs hoisted the cup), excluding the CFL, let's compare championship winnings between Philly and Toronto.

76ers, 1 Championship
Phillies, 2 World Series
Flyers, 2 Stanley Cups

And in between, they had the Eagles challenging constantly in the NFL winning many conference titles and they didn't have to suffer long stretches of non-playoffs, regularly qualifying every year. It was evident because of the demands of the fans that the teams made respectable efforts each year to AT LEAST contend for a championship exemplified by constant appearances in the finals by ALL their major sports teams.

Since 1967 we long-suffering fans in Toronto have won:

Blue Jays, 2 World Series





That is all.

When was the last time a Toronto team challenged for a championship? None of the MLSE teams, regardless of history, age, budget, roster, cap space or any other excuse that keeps creeping up when apologizing for their failures, none of their teams have even come close to contending for a championship.

So we don't even measure up to Philadelphia. Neither in championships, nor in seeing our teams qualify for playoffs, seeing them win divisions or conference titles in ANY sport, nor in seeing our teams post winning records or contend for championships.

I will take Philly's record over ours any day.


Just remember that the Raptors have not been around since 67, nor the Jays. Also figure into all of this the terrible exchange rate that featured heavily in sports followig on the heels of the Jays WS victories... there are too many factors to make these types of comparisons. The fact is that the Leafs were a very good team for about 4 years under Pat Quinn. They were twice a goal away from moving on to the Cup final. The Raptors have had the same amount of time as the Jays needed to get their act together... and TFC is way too young to figure into this.

Mark in Ottawa
11-02-2009, 09:58 AM
Wouldn't successful franchises be the ones that endure over time?
They endure because they provide hope and give their fans something to aspire to.

Once the hope is gone... the fans lose interest... no new fans are attracted... the franchise withers and dies.

Such as <insert any number of Ottawa based team names here> :(

boban
11-02-2009, 10:06 AM
"They don't know how to put winning franchises together" is such a broad statement though.

The Leafs, as of five years ago, were a winning team. The Raptors have made the playoffs 2 of the 3 years Colangelo has been in charge. The Argos won a Grey Cup a few seasons ago, and were the class of the league at that point.

The only team that has really been an unmitigated disaster for a long, long time now, is the Blue Jays. TFC is still too young to make such a sweeping declaration. And I'm pretty sure the Rock are a good lacrosse team, no?

When people call Toronto "Loserville", I think what they mean is we haven't won an actual championship in a while. But when you change your metric for "success" to simply winning a trophy, and start to look around North America, you realize there are TONS of cities in the same boat as us - many of which have diverse ownership of their sports teams.

With that in mind, I'm actually encouraged by MLSE's recent moves with their teams. They've finally brought in someone independent and respected to run their hockey team, and have finally started to lay the foundation for a top-class scouting department. They hired a respected basketball guy to run their basketball team, and given him autonomy to do whatever he wants to do with the roster. Regardless of the lack of on-field success, the MLSE Borg hive-mind at least seems to have understood how important investing in a grass surface was to the fans, and the future on-field success of the team.

I don't think things are as dreary as people make it sound, but Torontonians seem to have this innate need to be self-deprecating when it comes to sports.

- Scott
And posts like this are exactly the reason why ownership gets a free pass and no or limited pressure is put on them to produce championships. A winning team in my books is not one where you squeak in 7th or 8th place in your conference. The Maple Leafs are one of the pillars of the NHL. Simply equating them to making the playoffs is a success is dooming it to failure. This team should be aiming to win, and contend at the very least, the Stanley Cup EVERY year. That is a successful team. When you are in a market like this, its a special calling the ownership must take up to live up to the history of the team and not let it disintegrate.
The same to an extent can be said for TFC. When you see crowds like these, forget about sorts business awards, and win the on fields awards to take the team to a new level. Sadly these owners have no clue how to do that.

billyfly
11-02-2009, 10:07 AM
This is the thread I created back in May.


http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=13234&highlight=city+champions

In that thread I linked to this:

http://www.nuttyaboutsports.com/citi...hampions.shtml

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 10:10 AM
Just remember that the Raptors have not been around since 67, nor the Jays. Also figure into all of this the terrible exchange rate that featured heavily in sports followig on the heels of the Jays WS victories... there are too many factors to make these types of comparisons. The fact is that the Leafs were a very good team for about 4 years under Pat Quinn. They were twice a goal away from moving on to the Cup final. The Raptors have had the same amount of time as the Jays needed to get their act together... and TFC is way too young to figure into this.


To be frank, it really does exasperate to hear comments like "the Raptors have been around much less than such-and-such team".

How long does it take to build a competent, competitive team?

You say TFC is way too young to figure into this. Why? Seattle just showed that they can make the playoffs in their first year, and to be honest, the excuses why they did and we haven't in THREE years are extremely weak and apologetic.

With the Raptors, we have been a middle-of-the-pack team no better. Our expansion years were difficult but in the NBA it DOES take longer to build a winner I agree. Drafting well and building a core takes time. But that excuse died years/seasons ago, at THIS point, the Raptors are what they are, time will not improve anything that is being done incompetently, and in fact, they look to be regressing, not improving.

The Leafs? Fewer teams have had less playoff success than we have, regardless if in a few seasons we had some competitive teams. And those teams tend to come from places where they never see a flake of snow. It is highly frustrating to see fellow Leaf fans point to the little playoff success we have had as somehow evidence of competitive and quality teams. No...that evidence only survives the test when you see it happen on a regular basis like you do with New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado and Dallas, all markets we should be doing better than, but instead can't even touch when it comes to putting quality teams on the ice on a regular basis.

Even the Blue Jays, people excuse them by saying "we are in the same division as the Yankees and the Bosox" but few also qualify that by acknowledging that we had a losing record this year against other teams in our division such as Tampa Bay! And most don't even want to admit that the Jays WANTED to be in this division so that they could generate the revenue that comes from playing teams like the Yankees. They did it to themselves. Imagine that, a monetary factor influencing the team's fortunes. Never would have thunk it!

Yes, there are many factors that come into play. But most of them are measurable and in most, Toronto teams fail. At the end of the day, there can only be one champion per season, so that is obviously always the ultimate (and almost unattainable) goal. But Toronto teams are much further away from reaching that goal than most major markets and there is no good reason for it. We are a huge market (there are few markets in North America as large as ours), we support our teams in a huge way, we generate huge amounts of revenue for these teams...in those measurable ways, sports team owners in Toronto are laughing all the way to the bank...and yet in the way that is most important to fans, ownership always shrugs it's shoulders and says "we don't know"? That's just awful.

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 10:13 AM
The thing about MLSE is, yes, they have made some astute hiring decisions (one would think, anyway) over the last couple of years which leads people to believe they are committed to building winning franchises. But they have shown time and time again they value profits over championships. And as long as the second largest pension fund in Canada has a significant stake, this won't change. Their dalliances into other areas, like property development, don't inspire confidence.

I don't care about freaking condos, I care about championships.

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 10:15 AM
The Maple Leafs are one of the pillars of the NHL. Simply equating them to making the playoffs is a success is dooming it to failure. This team should be aiming to win, and contend at the very least, the Stanley Cup EVERY year. That is a successful team. When you are in a market like this, its a special calling the ownership must take up to live up to the history of the team and not let it disintegrate.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

The Leafs should be perennial contenders. Why is it Detroit can be and we can't? DETROIT??? That city is falling apart. They have been in a recession longer than almost anyone in the US. There is almost zero corporate money going into that team from the local area. And yet? AND YET?

And yet...to us, success is if we squeak into the playoffs in 8th spot and then overachieve. :rolleyes:

That makes me sad.

billyfly
11-02-2009, 10:18 AM
I agree with Boban's post 100%. We deserve butter!

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 10:24 AM
Exactly. The Leafs SHOULD be the Yankees of the NHL (and yes, I realize there are differences with the salary cap non-existent in MLB) in the sense that management and fans alike should not accept mediocrity. Heck, can you see Yankees fans being happy with making the wildcard every so often? If three years go by without winning a World Series, all hell breaks lose.

The Yankees failed to make the playoffs last year, and so they went out and got the pieces they needed to win a championship (new manager, new pitching, etc.). And not just any new pieces (like heralding Orr, Exelby and Komisarek as the dawn of a new successful era), but proven pieces that were to guarantee success. And now, they are steps away from winning another World Series.

Let me emphasize that I do not expect overnight success for the Leafs like the Yankees have accomplished. Yes, there are plenty of factors in the NHL which make this next to impossible. But I do expect the same commitment to winning, and that culture to be put in place so that the Leafs can be at least contending year in, year out.

boban
11-02-2009, 10:33 AM
Exactly. The Leafs SHOULD be the Yankees of the NHL (and yes, I realize there are differences with the salary cap non-existent in MLB) in the sense that management and fans alike should not accept mediocrity. Heck, can you see Yankees fans being happy with making the wildcard every so often? If three years go by without winning a World Series, all hell breaks lose.

The Yankees failed to make the playoffs last year, and so they went out and got the pieces they needed to win a championship (new manager, new pitching, etc.). And not just any new pieces (like heralding Orr, Exelby and Komisarek as the dawn of a new successful era), but proven pieces that were to guarantee success. And now, they are steps away from winning another World Series.
I agree it is different with the salary cap, but they should be leaders in finding other ways to get advantages out of this system. Also, this is only the 5th season of the cap. What happened to the other 13 or so season that MLSE has owned the Leafs without the cap?
They are more concerned with winning sports business awards than anything else it seems.

billyfly
11-02-2009, 10:38 AM
I know that MLSE have not been in charge of the Leafs since 67 but the difference b/t Les Canadiens and the Leafs is since 1967. Habs have won 10 cups in those 42 years and the Leafs zero.

1967 - Leafs 13 cups (yes I include the arenas and St. Pats)
1967 - Habs 14 cups (now 24)

boban
11-02-2009, 10:42 AM
I think a solution here would be for new leadership at the top within MLSE, because I think this is a problem with leadership all the way to Richard Peddie and the board. They need to change how they value success, and instead of a bean counter like Peddie, they need leadership that is compensated based on actually winning. They need someone running this who evaluates success, not in pure year over year dollar growth, but in terms of franchise valuation, future TV/marketing contract value...someone who can put a story together. I think MLSE leadership is the problem, and unfortunately that leadership has put similar minded leadership within its properties ie Anselmi for TFC.
Peddie is a smuck in there when it comes down to it. he only counts the beans how the others tell him to. yes he has a seat at the board, but it was gifted to him - he has no real skin in the game (ownership). What matters is that the Teachers Pension get a return on the investment every year from the Leafs et al. How does a trophy equate to a teacher when they see their pension cheque? That's the question that has to be asked.

jabbronies
11-02-2009, 10:44 AM
I agree it is different with the salary cap, but they should be leaders in finding other ways to get advantages out of this system. Also, this is only the 5th season of the cap. What happened to the other 13 or so season that MLSE has owned the Leafs without the cap?
They are more concerned with winning sports business awards than anything else it seems.

They were good in 93/94 and for the most part the Quinn years were good as well. The Leafs were actually contenders. You can't say they've completly sucked the whole 18 odd years MLSE has owned the team.

On a side note: I agree with Roogsy. The Jays made thier own bed. They had a chance to leave that division and they didn't. why they thought they could've competed with the Yankees and the Red Sox year after year is beyond me. Fuck the Jays, Bad dollar or not, I have no sympathy for them.

jabbronies
11-02-2009, 10:48 AM
What matters is that the Teachers Pension get a return on the investment every year from the Leafs et al. How does a trophy equate to a teacher when they see their pension cheque? That's the question that has to be asked.

The Leafs don't seem to realise it but they are loosing thier fan base outside of the GTA. That equates to huge profit losses I would think.

They are loosing Hamilton big time right now. If Hamilton gets a team, say goodbye to the everyone west of the GTA. East of Toronto is slowly becoming Senators territory. As close as Kingston you'll see more Senators flags than Leaf flags.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 10:52 AM
The thing about MLSE is, yes, they have made some astute hiring decisions (one would think, anyway) over the last couple of years which leads people to believe they are committed to building winning franchises. But they have shown time and time again they value profits over championships. And as long as the second largest pension fund in Canada has a significant stake, this won't change. Their dalliances into other areas, like property development, don't inspire confidence.

I don't care about freaking condos, I care about championships.

Plenty of team owners make profits with their other businesses (and their teams) and still win championships. Every owner in the NFL runs some successful business and one of them wins a Super Bowl every year (of course, the NFL has no corporate ownership).

Dave Feschuk's column in the Star today is called, "Imagaining a Gathering of Losers," (it's fiction, satire) and starts:

"On Sunday night Larry Tanenbaum, the minority owner of the cash machine that controls the Leafs and the Raptors, invited the illustrious hockey players and hoopsters over for dinner en masse.

For Tanenbaum, it was order-in jock-sniffing at his 14,833-square-foot shack in Forest Hill. For the rest of us, it was a jaw-dropping summit of squads on the skids. The Leafs, esteemed Moral Victors, have one win in 12 tries. The Raptors, coming off a 33-win embarrassment, have one win in three, the latest Sunday's 125-116 fall to the under-manned Orlando Magic.

So let's call Sunday night's historic shindig the Loss Supper. Heck, call it an early start to the U.N. climate change conference, because Tanenbaum, MLSE's chairman of the board of directors since 2003, is currently directing a sporting cold streak that might yet refreeze the polar ice cap. The Leafs haven't made the playoffs in going on five years. The Raptors haven't won a playoff series in going on eight."

It doesn't even mention TFC (which is probably good) but it has this line, "Tanenbaum's home has an elevator, a ballroom and a plaque demarking the door of the Tie Domi Bedroom, named for Tanenbaum's one-time man crush, er, a loyal and tireless former employee."

The problem was, of course, he wasn't just Tanenbaum's crush, a lotof people in this city thought he was really, really good. So MLSE gave him a huge contract.

At some point people might want to start asking, do Toronto sports fans get what they deserve?

Certainly Leaf fans have always valued, "Hard-working Canadian boys," over skill players. Or maybe it's just the hockey media in Toronto.

MLSE actually does listen to the fans - or maybe a better way to put it is that they listen to management if the fans are saying the same thing. That's why BMO is getting grass - TFC told MLSE they were having trouble signing playes because of the turf, the fans got on board and made a lot of noise to back up the claim and eventually it mde it to the board room (it was probably the same with a DP but the board said to make sure he was Canadian).

So it's good that TFC fans are now demanding the team be handed over to an experieced successful coach. Chances are that demand is helping management get the board to offer more money for the coach and maybe a longer-term contract that would make the position more attractive.

menefreghista
11-02-2009, 11:04 AM
The Leafs don't seem to realise it but they are loosing thier fan base outside of the GTA. That equates to huge profit losses I would think.

They are loosing Hamilton big time right now. If Hamilton gets a team, say goodbye to the everyone west of the GTA. East of Toronto is slowly becoming Senators territory. As close as Kingston you'll see more Senators flags than Leaf flags.

Actually, I think MLSE does realize this. This is why we see them running television ad campaigns with people reminiscing about past glories. They are also trying to reach out to newer Canadians who come from ethnic communities that have no connection to hockey.

And while it hasn't affected them yet, I bet they are scared shitless over the fact that secondary ticket market is starting to dry up. Once people stop buying tickets from scalpers and the online legalized scalpers, the next logical step is for ticket sales to drop.

Of course, the best way to increase your fan base is to win. Crazy concept.

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 11:07 AM
[quote=Beach_Red;776649]Plenty of team owners make profits with their other businesses (and their teams) and still win championships. Every owner in the NFL runs some successful business and one of them wins a Super Bowl every year (of course, the NFL has no corporate ownership).

quote]

Which is why I believe single owner/operator model is better for sports franchises. Part of the whole problem, I believe, with MLSE's franchises, is the business model.

Blazer
11-02-2009, 11:10 AM
MLSE makes their intentions perfectly clear to those of us astute enough to read between the lines. They’re “banking” (pun intended) on those of us – who represent the majority in any sports market not just this one - too stupid, or too rich to care enough about winning as it relates to hefty ticket prices.

It’s a simple recipe that they can’t quite seem to master. How can we maximize revenues while also generating a respectable product for fans to consume? Well, they’ve got the first part of the equation solved – they just can’t nail down the second, which is really of no consequence to them so long as the revenues stay high. Not to suggest that they don’t care about winning because all owners do, but they just don’t know how to win as so many of you have already stated. Winning equals more money, except in this hockey hotbed where warm corporate fannies are in seats regardless of ticket price.

Bottom line, if they really wanted to make winning a priority of theirs over maximizing revenues, they’d find the right people to take a viable stab at winning before anything (revenue included) else. Brian Burke and Brian Collangelo being just their latest attempts – with the verdict still out on both.

menefreghista
11-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Dave Feschuk's column in the Star today is called, "magaining a gathering of Losers and starts:

It should be noted that this was a fiction piece by Feschuk. Some people might actually believe it. Still funny though.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 11:12 AM
[quote=Beach_Red;776649]Plenty of team owners make profits with their other businesses (and their teams) and still win championships. Every owner in the NFL runs some successful business and one of them wins a Super Bowl every year (of course, the NFL has no corporate ownership).

quote]

Which is why I believe single owner/operator model is better for sports franchises. Part of the whole problem, I believe, with MLSE's franchises, is the business model.


Yes, I think you're right. And, I think if MLS had the choice they would follow the NFL model and not have corporate ownership, but people haven't exactly been beating down the doors to get in.

And certainly in Toronto there was no one else stepping up to own the team (the Argos owners claim they looked at it, who knows what might have happened).

This is kind of what drives me crazy about the NFL in Toronto - if an owner stepped up with the money (Houston paid over $700 million, so it would probably be more than that now and they'd need a proper stadium) the NFL would put a team here tomorrow, but no one in this city is going to put up that kind of money.

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 11:14 AM
So it's good that TFC fans are now demanding the team be handed over to an experieced successful coach. Chances are that demand is helping management get the board to offer more money for the coach and maybe a longer-term contract that would make the position more attractive.

This is the truth!

There are many elements on this board that bemoan the harsh criticism that gets levelled at the team, but you know what? Without that criticism, this team doesn't get grass, doesn't get a DP and doesn't improve, end of story.

Like I keep saying, fans that don't care are fans that leave. And we don't want that for this team. And yes, caring means making noise when necessary. To be complacent is to not care enough. If we want to make this team better, we have to make noise and demands. It's not about what we "deserve", it's about doing our part to keep people accountable because lord knows the heavyweights at MLSE don't lift up their noses from the trough long enough to realize what is going on around them, so someone has to tell them.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 11:14 AM
It should be noted that this was a fiction piece by Feschuk. Some people might actually believe it. Still funny though.

Yeah, I forgot to add that, it's satire. I edited my post.

Thanks.

menefreghista
11-02-2009, 11:16 AM
Yeah, I forgot to add that, it's satire. I edited my post.

Thanks.

No worries, I loved the Tie Domi part.

S_D
11-02-2009, 11:17 AM
Exactly. I agree 100%.

The Leafs should be perennial contenders. Why is it Detroit can be and we can't? DETROIT??? That city is falling apart. They have been in a recession longer than almost anyone in the US. There is almost zero corporate money going into that team from the local area. And yet? AND YET?

And yet...to us, success is if we squeak into the playoffs in 8th spot and then overachieve. :rolleyes:

That makes me sad.

MLSE's biggest mistakes have been allowing and approving Peddie to hire rookie GM's in all their franchises. They are still paying for it but the teams are slowly turning it around. Peddie screwed up large, but the board is also to blame for approving the method, and for meddling.

They saw the error of their ways but let's not give Peddie too much credit. NBA recommended Colangelo for the GM position (and Peddie acted on it so a bit of credit for seeing the light but not for finding the guy), and Peddie needed help in a hiring committee to get Burke who should be good for the franchise in the long run.

Not sure who should be blamed for hiring Mo lol.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 11:30 AM
MLSE's biggest mistakes have been allowing and approving Peddie to hire rookie GM's in all their franchises. They are still paying for it but the teams are slowly turning it around. Peddie screwed up large, but the board is also to blame for approving the method, and for meddling.

They saw the error of their ways but let's not give Peddie too much credit. NBA recommended Colangelo for the GM position (and Peddie acted on it so a bit of credit for seeing the light but not for finding the guy), and Peddie needed help in a hiring committee to get Burke who should be good for the franchise in the long run.

Not sure who should be blamed for hiring Mo lol.

Do we know what kind of offers the board approved?

Chances are they were mid-range in whatever league the team is in (that's usually where they spend), but it's also likely for TFC they wouldn't approve very much money or a very long-term contract and many experienced GMs simply weren't intrested. It was pretty clear that MLSE went into TFC very, very cautiously, not putting up too much money and seeing how it went.

Really, any mistakes they made could be turned around very quickly by hiring the right coach. So, it's good to see pressue applied by the fans because they do react to it. If management has to tell the board, "We need more money for the coach position," (which they've probably been saying all along but the board hasn't been putting it up) and there's pressure from the fans, they'll give it up.

It's really a case of be careful what you wish for...

jabbronies
11-02-2009, 11:36 AM
Actually, I think MLSE does realize this. This is why we see them running television ad campaigns with people reminiscing about past glories. They are also trying to reach out to newer Canadians who come from ethnic communities that have no connection to hockey.

And while it hasn't affected them yet, I bet they are scared shitless over the fact that secondary ticket market is starting to dry up. Once people stop buying tickets from scalpers and the online legalized scalpers, the next logical step is for ticket sales to drop.

Of course, the best way to increase your fan base is to win. Crazy concept.

I've never seen one of these ads. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying i've never seen one.

It's funny they would try and target new fans to the team in this manner. It doesn't matter how many ads they run, why would a new fan want to support a huge looser like the Leafs?

As for me. I have done my part to boycott them by not buying tickets, Jerseys or anything else Leaf related. They suck and they don't deserve my money cos they'll just use it to fuck up even more.

And the Leafs don't target people like me anyways. I can't afford to pay $200 for shitty standing room only section. I'm sure there is a corporation or small business out there who would more than be happy to spend thier money on these shitty tickets. I mean, that is the leafs target market isn't it?? Anything with a LTD. or INC. at the end of thier name?

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 11:50 AM
^ LOL! You sound bitter Ravi...

menefreghista
11-02-2009, 11:51 AM
I can't afford to pay $200 for shitty standing room only section.

I went to a couple of Leaf games last season with standing room only tickets and they were $40 each.

Edit: This is the ad the Leafs have been running: http://qml.quiettouch.com/files/publishing/marketing/MarketingDaily/2008/Maple_Leafs_1029.mov

The Leafs know they are starting to get cracks in their fan base.

I do get a kick out of the Maple Leafs newest slogan 'Spirit Is Everything', apparently winning isn't anything.

boban
11-02-2009, 12:15 PM
MLSE's biggest mistakes have been allowing and approving Peddie to hire rookie GM's in all their franchises. They are still paying for it but the teams are slowly turning it around. Peddie screwed up large, but the board is also to blame for approving the method, and for meddling.

They saw the error of their ways but let's not give Peddie too much credit. NBA recommended Colangelo for the GM position (and Peddie acted on it so a bit of credit for seeing the light but not for finding the guy), and Peddie needed help in a hiring committee to get Burke who should be good for the franchise in the long run.

Not sure who should be blamed for hiring Mo lol.
The problems were there before the rookie managers.
The whole structure and its people are inept. Period.

billyfly
11-02-2009, 12:16 PM
Winning would be nice.

flatpicker
11-02-2009, 12:29 PM
The problems were there before the rookie managers.
The whole structure and its people are inept. Period.

Problems may have existed prior...
But clubs with money behind them (whether it be Blue Jays, Leafs, Raptors, TFC), should never hire rookie or inexperienced management.
They should always open their wallets up to the best people available.
Anything less is a slap in the face for their fans.

Whoop
11-02-2009, 12:50 PM
From a Leafs point of view, prior to the salary cap, the Leafs were in the fortunate situation to have money, so when there was a problem they would throw money at it, but in the meantime, they weren't building a proper foundation for the future.

When the salary cap came into play, they could no longer throw money at the problem and quickly realized that they hadn't planned properly for the future and were inadequately prepared for a salary cap system.

Now Burke was hired to fix that but the combination of impatient fan base and an impatient GM, it's a volatile mix.

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 01:03 PM
Now Burke was hired to fix that but the combination of impatient fan base and an impatient GM, it's a volatile mix.

And trading away two first round draft picks for Kessel, it still seems like the Leafs haven't learned from the mistakes of the past.

I really hope Burke proves me wrong, in fact, I want him to prove me wrong, but I haven't been overly enthused by his moves so far. OK, getting Gustavsson may have proven to be a masterstroke, only time will tell, but it just seems like the culture of trading away the future for a present stopgap seems to be an ongoing thing, regardless of who is GM.

Leafs have always been lacking in player development/scouting, and for the Jays, this has been a weak area ever since Ricciardi era began, if not before.

Whoop
11-02-2009, 01:12 PM
The Jays under Gillick/Beeston were renowned for having one of the best scouting staffs in the league. And a reputation for treating them well. That goes a long way.

Gord Ash tried to maintain that but it started going downhill.

When Ricciardi took over he started cutting the staff and had them focused mainly on university/college players as opposed to HS players, which at the time was the A's mantra. Then of course he reversed course half way through his regime because the HS players had a higher return than the university/college guys.

At least with Anthopoulos now the Jays are expanding their scouting staff.

As for the Leafs, Burke is slowly doing the same thing. I question some of the hires but at least he is expanding the staff, which is one area that is not subject to the cap. But of course, that's one extra expense on the ledger. Don't know if the board/pension plan will like those extra expenses especially when the return on those investments aren't seen for 4-5 years.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 01:13 PM
MLSE's biggest mistakes have been allowing and approving Peddie to hire rookie GM's in all their franchises.

It's a tough call.

Someone on here mentioned the New Jersey Devils as an example of a well-run team but when they hired Lamoriello he had no NHL (or even pro hockey) experience and everyone thought he would flop.

On the other hand, most NHL teams go with what could be described as the 'proven loser' candidate. How many teams have the Murray brothers been with and never won anything? Pat Quinn has another job, of course, afer 35 years of futility.

Okay, I'm just bitter because the Leafs didn't do something bold like hire Anders Hedberg to run the team, but does it seem odd that the NHL has so many European players and no European coaches or GMs?

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 01:15 PM
And trading away two first round draft picks for Kessel, it still seems like the Leafs haven't learned from the mistakes of the past.

Exactly!

You know what the problem is? Every GM that comes in here says "we are going to rebuild" and then doesn't. Why? Because the actual process of rebuilding would necessitate one or two painful years at the bottom of the standings, knowing you will be there and choking it down because you have to.

Every GM that comes in says they are going to rebuild but then the pressure of rebuilding WHILE trying to patchwork a team together that will make the playoffs forces them to eventually give up the rebuilding and concentrate on what every other GM in this town has done...squeak into the playoffs.

Why? Because the financial repercussions of admitting you will suck for a year or two and intentionally allowing yourself to be there are so dangerous for people's jobs and for MLSE's bottom line that eventually the pressure gets to them and they throw the whole "rebuilding" process out the window. 43 years of futility and I can't remember the last time this team actually did a proper rebuilding process that benefited in the long term.

MarioNEE
11-02-2009, 01:21 PM
I've always looked at pro sports teams differently than most buisnesses. Pro Sports teams are often a prestige item for thier rich 'extravagent' owners. Owning a big name team (even a small name team) is the type of thing that gets you invited to the right parties, helps your networking, is a 'cool' thing, etc.

Not in our case. With a corp owner that part of the equation is greatly reduced.

We have the advantage of the very small risk of MLSE going bankrupt, selling the team/moving the team or other insecurities of unpredicable single owners. However we lose the benifets of an owner's (who really does have the final say in everything the team does) need to win beyond what is neccesary to sell tickets and the brand.

I'm sure MLSE wants to win, as I'm sure they understand winning raises brand value. Yet I feel the owners deepest hunger for the team is not about the team winning. MLSE doesn't pick up a team because they always dreaming of winning the cup but just happened to be better at buisness than footy.

Steinbrenner might not always make the best decsions for the Yankees, and maybe he meddles too much for the teams own good. But you know that at the end of the day, he is royally pissed everytime they lose a game, not just every time they lose money. You know every time they are eliminated no one is happy to go work the next day... and maybe thats the way it should be.

'Owners' do in effect hire those in charge the team, and are therefore must be seen to have thehighest level of responsibilty for their wining/losing. I don't understand arguing otherwise. MLSE may or maynot be owning that wins, but I would think you have to accept that they are the true boss, and therefore truly responsible.

Once you accept that, you might move on to see that they have mixed results at best.


I am not excited to see MLSE own TFC. But at least I have no fears the team will lose money anytime soon.

Whoop
11-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Why? Because the financial repercussions of admitting you will suck for a year or two and intentionally allowing yourself to be there are so dangerous for people's jobs and for MLSE's bottom line that eventually the pressure gets to them and they throw the whole "rebuilding" process out the window. 43 years of futility and I can't remember the last time this team actually did a proper rebuilding process that benefited in the long term.

That's it right there.

That's why you need a guy with big pockets to come in and say "You know what I'm willing to take the hit for a year or two so we can do this right and because I love the Leafs."

But when the problem is losing out on lost playoff revenue, I bet the board is saying "Brian, we understand we're rebuilding, but is there anyway we can get into the playoffs this year? It's been a long time."

Burke: "But this team isn't good enough to make the playoffs. In fact we might be a lottery team."

Board: "Shhhhh.... Don't say that. We have to give them hope otherwise people will turn away until we do make the playoffs. Just tease them a bit."

Burke: "But I don't have any assets to trade to make this team a playoff team. I'd rather stand pat and probably trade a couple of guys for some young prospects. Only thing is it might take 2-3 years before we're really good."

Board: "2-3 years!?!? Brian, umm... I don't know how to say this... but the shareholders won't be happy if our profits start to dip... umm... this could have some serious ramifications."

Well... you get the drift.

Whoop
11-02-2009, 01:28 PM
The other problem is you have board members who think they know hockey... so they meddle. I mean a lot of guys wish they could be a NHL GM and/or think they are hockey experts so they're willing to offer an opinion.

The board members don't know squat about basketball or football so they gave the reins to one guy. When Colangelo got off the blocks like gangbusters they figured that was the way to go with the football team. Problem is they don't know if they made a mistake or not with the hires.

With the hockey team, there was more reluctance in giving one guy the power because back to the first point, they all think they're hockey experts and to have no say in hockey matters, well that's no fun. So they resort to putting pressure on the money side.

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Why? Because the financial repercussions of admitting you will suck for a year or two and intentionally allowing yourself to be there are so dangerous for people's jobs and for MLSE's bottom line that eventually the pressure gets to them and they throw the whole "rebuilding" process out the window. 43 years of futility and I can't remember the last time this team actually did a proper rebuilding process that benefited in the long term.

But this is what I don't get. I think Leafs fans have proven they'll fill the building regardless of what kind of product is on the ice, a luxury many other NHL teams don't have. People still accept their yearly increases in season ticket packages, concessions, and merchandise, and still gobble it all up. So, even if the Leafs were to be rock bottom for a few years, what would they have to lose (on the business side)? They are one of the few teams who can get away with being piss-poor and still realize a profit.

Teachers' main concern is their ROI, steady, predictable earnings and a profit that inches up year-by-year, which I'm sure it does (I haven't looked at MLSE's financials lately, so I could be completely wrong). I'm sure two years at the bottom of the league won't affect that too greatly.

S_D
11-02-2009, 01:31 PM
The problems were there before the rookie managers.
The whole structure and its people are inept. Period.

I can't disagree with you on that. Hiring a rookie manager/GM who is out of his depth AND has to deal with a meddling board is set up for failure.

Northern Soul
11-02-2009, 01:49 PM
And trading away two first round draft picks for Kessel, it still seems like the Leafs haven't learned from the mistakes of the past.

Ummm...you do know Kessel is only 22, right? It's not like he traded 2 first rounders for a 30 year old, which has been what the Leafs did in the past.

Shakes McQueen
11-02-2009, 01:56 PM
Ummm...you do know Kessel is only 22, right? It's not like he traded 2 first rounders for a 30 year old, which has been what the Leafs did in the past.

He traded two 1st rounders for a potentially budding NHL superstar that could be a team building block for a decade or more.

The Leafs of the past would have traded those picks for a 33 year old whose best years were behind him, or a 30 year old who had one good season.

If you don't believe in Burke's methods, that's fine. But you certainly can't argue that he's doing the same thing as past Leafs teams under guys like JFJ.

- Scott

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Ummm...you do know Kessel is only 22, right? It's not like he traded 2 first rounders for a 30 year old, which has been what the Leafs did in the past.

I am aware that Kessel is young and still, perhaps, has plenty of upside. I don't think he is worthy of two first rounders though, especially two first rounders that may end up being lottery picks.

I think he will be a good addition to the Leafs, but people are going to be disappointed when they realize he isn't going to single-handedly transform the team's fortunes.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 02:09 PM
He traded two 1st rounders for a potentially budding NHL superstar that could be a team building block for a decade or more.

The Leafs of the past would have traded those picks for a 33 year old whose best years were behind him, or a 30 year old who had one good season.

If you don't believe in Burke's methods, that's fine. But you certainly can't argue that he's doing the same thing as past Leafs teams under guys like JFJ.

- Scott


This is what Leaf fans always say, though. Everybody the Leafs pick-up or draft is going to be a superstar.

Shakes McQueen
11-02-2009, 02:24 PM
This is what Leaf fans always say, though. Everybody the Leafs pick-up or draft is going to be a superstar.

The Leafs almost never pick up kids in trades though - they always get Jason Blake, or Brian Leetch, or Eric Lindros, or... or... or...

Those are the typical "marquee signings" the Leafs have made in the past. They buy old stars way past their prime, pay them too much money, and then lament as said person doesn't have the skills to carry the team to a championship. Or they get an old player who just had a career year, give up anything to get him, and then lament as he never, ever recaptures that form.

Kessel is a kid with really good skills, and clearly Burke sees great potential in him to become a bonafide star.

If you're also talking about Kadri - to be fair, most of the "Kadri is going to be a star" talk didn't start until he impressed in pre-season. But I agree, the talk about him and Schenn is a bit premature.

- Scott

Oldtimer
11-02-2009, 02:25 PM
It looks like folks are ignoring the Toronto Rock:

Championships 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005

Toronto doesn't lose at everything. :)

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 02:30 PM
^ LOL! Nice one bro. But if we're excluding the CFL, how much moreso the Lacrosse leagues. In most cases, these guys are only semi-professional having to work other jobs as well. It just quite doesn't reach the level of "major professional sports league".

Whoop
11-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Shakes... Kessel has the potential to be a NHL superstar.

What I laugh at, or others point out, is not so much the trade for Kessel (which could be a good one) it's the fact that Burke did what he said he wouldn't do and that was trade first round picks.

So it makes it appear like he's falling under the same trap as previous GMs.

I think Kessel will be good in Toronto, but not great. Remember in Boston he had some pretty good forwards to play with.

CoachGT
11-02-2009, 02:33 PM
^ LOL! Nice one bro. But if we're excluding the CFL, how much moreso the Lacrosse leagues. In most cases, these guys are only semi-professional having to work other jobs as well. It just quite doesn't reach the level of "major professional sports league".

Have you seen how much MLS pays development roster players?

Whoop
11-02-2009, 02:33 PM
^ LOL! Nice one bro. But if we're excluding the CFL, how much moreso the Lacrosse leagues. In most cases, these guys are only semi-professional having to work other jobs as well. It just quite doesn't reach the level of "major professional sports league".

How about that NLL title this year?

I mean at least there was one championship team at BMO this year. LOL

tfcleeds
11-02-2009, 02:36 PM
How about that NLL title this year?

I mean at least there was one championship team at BMO this year. LOL

That was one championship that REALLY was under the radar...I think it got a quarter page in the Toronto Sun, next to the Arizona Bar & Grill ads.

Funny how the Nationals weren't mentioned in yesterday's article. Rock was though.

dclaro
11-02-2009, 02:42 PM
How about that NLL title this year?

I mean at least there was one championship team at BMO this year. LOL
Wasn't it MLL?

Whoop
11-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Wasn't it MLL?

Whatever. LOL

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 03:16 PM
Shakes... Kessel has the potential to be a NHL superstar.

What I laugh at, or others point out, is not so much the trade for Kessel (which could be a good one) it's the fact that Burke did what he said he wouldn't do and that was trade first round picks.

So it makes it appear like he's falling under the same trap as previous GMs.

I think Kessel will be good in Toronto, but not great. Remember in Boston he had some pretty good forwards to play with.

Of course, forwards don't win Stanley Cups. Kessel could be the next Mats Sundin, he was pretty good, didn't help. really, I was surprised that Pronger changed teams and Burke didn't sign him - the first step for any NHL team is a big, solid defenceman.

But I didn't just mean Kessel, I mean the way Leaf fans over-value every player they sign.

MUFC_Niagara
11-02-2009, 03:22 PM
Exactly!

You know what the problem is? Every GM that comes in here says "we are going to rebuild" and then doesn't. Why? Because the actual process of rebuilding would necessitate one or two painful years at the bottom of the standings, knowing you will be there and choking it down because you have to.

Every GM that comes in says they are going to rebuild but then the pressure of rebuilding WHILE trying to patchwork a team together that will make the playoffs forces them to eventually give up the rebuilding and concentrate on what every other GM in this town has done...squeak into the playoffs.

Why? Because the financial repercussions of admitting you will suck for a year or two and intentionally allowing yourself to be there are so dangerous for people's jobs and for MLSE's bottom line that eventually the pressure gets to them and they throw the whole "rebuilding" process out the window. 43 years of futility and I can't remember the last time this team actually did a proper rebuilding process that benefited in the long term.

Exactly, this doesn't even take into account the pressure the fans put on MLSE to build an instant winner, all the while calling for everyone's job after every loss! Leaf fans....unbelievable, I wish they could be more like TFC supporters.

billyfly
11-02-2009, 03:24 PM
Exactly, this doesn't even take into account the pressure the fans put on MLSE to build an instant winner, all the while calling for everyone's job after every loss! Leaf fans....unbelievable, I wish they could be more like TFC supporters.

This had me laughing

Shakes McQueen
11-02-2009, 03:24 PM
Of course, forwards don't win Stanley Cups. Kessel could be the next Mats Sundin, he was pretty good, didn't help. really, I was surprised that Pronger changed teams and Burke didn't sign him - the first step for any NHL team is a big, solid defenceman.

But I didn't just mean Kessel, I mean the way Leaf fans over-value every player they sign.

Part of me expected Burke to try and sign Pronger too, but I'm glad he didn't. Too old, and WAY too expensive.

A guy like him is a fantastic "final piece" for a team that needs leadership and grit, but would be ridiculous for a team like ours.

- Scott

MUFC_Niagara
11-02-2009, 03:26 PM
This had me laughing

LOL....ya I laughed as I was typing it.

Roogsy
11-02-2009, 04:06 PM
Exactly, this doesn't even take into account the pressure the fans put on MLSE to build an instant winner, all the while calling for everyone's job after every loss! Leaf fans....unbelievable, I wish they could be more like TFC supporters.

Tim if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You constantly complain about my responding to your posts to the point where you whinge about not being to ignore me because I am a mod, but then constantly engage me in various topics only to them fall back in the same pattern of "woe is me". Want to dialogue with me? Fine...I've got no problem. But I don't want to see anymore whining out of you.

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 04:21 PM
Part of me expected Burke to try and sign Pronger too, but I'm glad he didn't. Too old, and WAY too expensive.

A guy like him is a fantastic "final piece" for a team that needs leadership and grit, but would be ridiculous for a team like ours.

- Scott


Are we sure he didn't try but Pronger wasn't interested at all?

Very few teams ever get to the point of being able to add leadership as a final piece - no leadership means they rarely go in the right direction.

Shakes McQueen
11-02-2009, 04:28 PM
Are we sure he didn't try but Pronger wasn't interested at all?

Very few teams ever get to the point of being able to add leadership as a final piece - no leadership means they rarely go in the right direction.

I suspect if Burke was testing the waters in trying to get Pronger, someone from the media would have reported it. I never heard anything about Toronto going after him, aside from the usual "would it be a good idea?" questions that go along with any free agent and the Leafs, haha.

- Scott

Beach_Red
11-02-2009, 04:31 PM
I suspect if Burke was testing the waters in trying to get Pronger, someone from the media would have reported it. I never heard anything about Toronto going after him, aside from the usual "would it be a good idea?" questions that go along with any free agent and the Leafs, haha.

- Scott


You're right. I suspect Burke knows all the agents involved and knew what chances he had with free agents. Still Burke has pulled some crazy stunts in his career ;).

Pookie
11-02-2009, 04:43 PM
A comparison was made way back on page one about Mike Ilitch and the Red Wings. The theory went that an owner like that, who cared about winning more than profits, would be beneficial.

Note that Ilitch also owns the Detroit Tigers. He got the team in 1992. Their combined record under Ilitch's ownership is 1,268 Wins and 1,582 Losses.

In the 17 years he has owned the club, they've made it to the post season 1 time, losing the World Series in 2006.

That's the full picture.

Carts
11-02-2009, 04:59 PM
A comparison was made way back on page one about Mike Ilitch and the Red Wings. The theory went that an owner like that, who cared about winning more than profits, would be beneficial.

Note that Ilitch also owns the Detroit Tigers. He got the team in 1992. Their combined record under Ilitch's ownership is 1,268 Wins and 1,582 Losses.

In the 17 years he has owned the club, they've made it to the post season 1 time, losing the World Series in 2006.

That's the full picture.

This is a perfect example of the Maple Leafs with MLSE...

When Illich purchased the sports properties from that bankrupt holding company he completely gutted the Red Wings front office, secondary staff, pretty much everything from the ground up (and had the forsight to raid Russia lol)...

With the Tigers, the old guard and old boys club remained in tact - and have since remained in tact (yes the GM's change etc, but the men in the governors lounge & actually making the decisions etc are the same)...

Look at the difference:

+ Red Wings clean out and build a foundation from scratch (losing money early on) the right way and our perrenial contenders (now profitable)...

+ Tigers keep the old guard and old ways of doing things and are more often than not - losing (their financial situation I don't know about)...

Toronto follows the Tigers model, not the Red Wings... The old guard, the MLSE board, and the business men running a sports team stays...

Also interesting comparison is that MLSE has "kind of" followed the 1st model with the Raptors now (kind of)... Hiring BC and giving (or publicly saying) him the freedome to make the choices he thinks will produce a winner, not something a BOG filled with old business fossils thinks is best...

I hate basketball, but personally I the Raptors succeed, as maybe it'll shake up the MLSE BOG on the Leafs side of things if the Raptors become a top club...

Carts...

Pookie
11-02-2009, 05:13 PM
^ BC still has to run a budget and plan through the Board though. No President has complete autonomy.

That said, it is a definite plus to not have to go to a President and then the Board. Direct line is important.

What is encouraging, from the hockey side is that Burke doesn't have to report to Peddie. He too goes to the Board.

I don't think Mo has this...

ag futbol
11-02-2009, 09:47 PM
First: Lankoff + quotes from Rob Ford = epic fail

Second: while correlation isn't causation and winning in sports is pretty black box, for a city of it's size + resources it's hard to argue that Toronto teams haven't under achieved.

There's been some stuff where teams have been unlucky (Jays investing money, but coming up empty) and others that make it easy to see why people blame MLSE for everything (Peddie + the board meddling with the leafs and raptors).

Shakes McQueen
11-03-2009, 02:26 AM
^ BC still has to run a budget and plan through the Board though. No President has complete autonomy.

That said, it is a definite plus to not have to go to a President and then the Board. Direct line is important.

What is encouraging, from the hockey side is that Burke doesn't have to report to Peddie. He too goes to the Board.

I don't think Mo has this...

I doubt Mo has the same degree of autonomy BC or BB have with the Raps and Leafs. In the case of Burke, I know being given full control over the club was essential to him even agreeing to come here. And Colangelo has said in interviews that he has the same level of control that Burke has.

Those two guys have solid pedigrees, and aren't begging for work. They also run financially successful sports properties, that make money hand over fist for MLSE. With that in mind, they can be given massive latitude in how they spend money.

Mo doesn't have any of that. He isn't a highly sought after executive. He doesn't have a track record of success. And he doesn't run a team that makes massive money for ownership, the way the Raptors or Leafs do. He runs a team that makes, according to varying estimates from people here, anywhere from $5m to $20m a season - a drop in the bucket, compared to everything else.

- Scott

MUFC_Niagara
11-03-2009, 06:48 AM
Tim if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You constantly complain about my responding to your posts to the point where you whinge about not being to ignore me because I am a mod, but then constantly engage me in various topics only to them fall back in the same pattern of "woe is me". Want to dialogue with me? Fine...I've got no problem. But I don't want to see anymore whining out of you.

:cryin: