• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Matthews or BUST

herman said:
The absence of (official) information makes the imagination run wild.

Ultimately they have no requirement to share info with the public about how they do business, but it does get frustrating not knowing.  You're right, it's easy to come up with millions of scenarios in your head when we constantly obsess about this stuff.  :D
 
Potvin29 said:
I mean, I really, REALLY can't see if this was holding up him signing or not signing that Shanahan wouldn't step in and make sure it got done.  They are not going to go through the last year, year and a half to get to this point and let this hold things up.  Lou answers to Shanahan in the end.

Exactly. One way or another, this will get done, and, in all honesty, it's probably not worth being concerned about until training camp gets underway. Whether he signs today or the day camp starts doesn't really change anything.
 
herman said:
The absence of (official) information makes the imagination run wild.

It's enough to make you think that effective media relations is an important part of running the franchise. I remember the Leafs used to have this young guy out in front of that, effectively communicating. Whatever happened to him?
 
Potvin29 said:
I mean, I really, REALLY can't see if this was holding up him signing or not signing that Shanahan wouldn't step in and make sure it got done.  They are not going to go through the last year, year and a half to get to this point and let this hold things up.  Lou answers to Shanahan in the end.

Maybe. But I think that Shanahan has shown that he generally leaves the GM'ing to the GM. We've seen 3 pretty distinctive phases of the Leafs under his watch: when Nonis was the GM, when Dubas was the de facto-GM, and when Lou was the GM.

But yes, if this WAS the hold-up, I would really hope/think this would be where Shanny puts his foot down.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Well his reasons for not believing in them (and reasons for his other odd tendencies) don't make much sense to me, so I'm not going to get into his logic there much. But yes, it wouldn't really surprise me if he decided to only soften his stance on the issue instead of dropping it entirely.

Yeah, I'm not sure if now is the time to really hold to a rigorous standard of "does this policy make sense?"
 
Zee said:
herman said:
The absence of (official) information makes the imagination run wild.

Ultimately they have no requirement to share info with the public about how they do business, but it does get frustrating not knowing.  You're right, it's easy to come up with millions of scenarios in your head when we constantly obsess about this stuff.  :D

Nik the Trik said:
It's enough to make you think that effective media relations is an important part of running the franchise. I remember the Leafs used to have this young guy out in front of that, effectively communicating. Whatever happened to him?

Who's to say the information vacuum isn't deliberately designed to generate content for ownership?  ;D

There are certain aspects of Lou's media policies that I'm okay with: no in-game interviews of rookies. Lots of post-game, or off-game-day availability. Basically, he doesn't want to report to the media about things in progress, only things that have been signed off on. Doesn't change that some of his other 'laws' are a bit dated, but it worked for him in the past and they haven't fully convinced him to change them yet.

Some examples that comes to my mind of the media/fanbase going a bit crazy with the lack of information were Nylander at WJs, and Stalock's situation at the end of last season. Lots of media speculation, but none all that close to the truth where the Leafs truly did the right thing for the player in my opinion.
 
herman said:
Doesn't change that some of his other 'laws' are a bit dated, but it worked for him in the past and they haven't fully convinced him to change them yet.

How well has it worked in the last 15 years?
 
Nik the Trik said:
herman said:
Doesn't change that some of his other 'laws' are a bit dated, but it worked for him in the past and they haven't fully convinced him to change them yet.

How well has it worked in the last 15 years?

It only has to work according to his judgment for it to be considered effective, sadly. I can't quantify how much they move the needle in either direction.
 
herman said:
It only has to work according to his judgment for it to be considered effective, sadly. I can't quantify how much they move the needle in either direction.

And, to be fair, we did win the war with Eastasia.
 
herman said:
Nik the Trik said:
herman said:
Doesn't change that some of his other 'laws' are a bit dated, but it worked for him in the past and they haven't fully convinced him to change them yet.

How well has it worked in the last 15 years?

It only has to work according to his judgment for it to be considered effective, sadly. I can't quantify how much they move the needle in either direction.

We're really going to look at the last 15 years of Lou with the Devils and criticize it?  7 teams with 100 points or more, a Stanley cup and 3 trips to the finals.  I'd say that's pretty good considering the financial limitations that the Devils have always had.
 
Zee said:
We're really going to look at the last 15 years of Lou with the Devils and criticize it?  7 teams with 100 points or more, a Stanley cup and 3 trips to the finals.  I'd say that's pretty good considering the financial limitations that the Devils have always had.

We could get into a deep dig on the Devils' record over the last little while but for now I'd just say that pre-cap the Devils weren't especially hamstrung salary wise.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Zee said:
We're really going to look at the last 15 years of Lou with the Devils and criticize it?  7 teams with 100 points or more, a Stanley cup and 3 trips to the finals.  I'd say that's pretty good considering the financial limitations that the Devils have always had.

We could get into a deep dig on the Devils' record over the last little while but for now I'd just say that pre-cap the Devils weren't especially hamstrung salary wise.

That's still a far better performance than any Leafs team in 50 years so I don't know what you're getting at.  Lou's tactics might be outdated, but I can't go back and say he was bad for the Devils despite what that team currently looks like.  I would have enjoyed a Leafs Cup anytime in my life let alone 3 that the Devils won.
 
Zee said:
That's still a far better performance than any Leafs team in 50 years so I don't know what you're getting at.

Well, one, that "being better than most Leafs teams" isn't really a metric we should be using and two that we're not trying to win the 2003 Stanley Cup and that tactics that may have been effective 20 or so years ago don't necessarily translate and should be judged on their own merits.
 
I've said it before so I'm just repeating myself but for all the experience Lou brings, what got me excited about the Leafs future was Dubas/Hunter/Shanahan.  I'm less thrilled with some of the things that have gone on since Lou came aboard.  Not that things have been remotely bad and are certainly still in a positive direction but my enthusiasm on certain moves has certainly blunted my thought that the Leafs are ahead of the curve on all of their decision making.
 
Zee said:
Nik the Trik said:
Zee said:
We're really going to look at the last 15 years of Lou with the Devils and criticize it?  7 teams with 100 points or more, a Stanley cup and 3 trips to the finals.  I'd say that's pretty good considering the financial limitations that the Devils have always had.

We could get into a deep dig on the Devils' record over the last little while but for now I'd just say that pre-cap the Devils weren't especially hamstrung salary wise.

That's still a far better performance than any Leafs team in 50 years so I don't know what you're getting at.  Lou's tactics might be outdated, but I can't go back and say he was bad for the Devils despite what that team currently looks like.  I would have enjoyed a Leafs Cup anytime in my life let alone 3 that the Devils won.
Who wouldn't?

But did jersey numbers, few bonuses, and clean faces really contribute to those victories?
 
L K said:
I've said it before so I'm just repeating myself but for all the experience Lou brings, what got me excited about the Leafs future was Dubas/Hunter/Shanahan.  I'm less thrilled with some of the things that have gone on since Lou came aboard.  Not that things have been remotely bad and are certainly still in a positive direction but my enthusiasm on certain moves has certainly blunted my thought that the Leafs are ahead of the curve on all of their decision making.

Lou brought in the credibility of his past and his culture building, but he's not the final word on all things Leafs.  As it's been pointed out, Lou has 2 years left on his deal, so he might sail off into the sunset at that time and the Leafs have Dubas step in.  I think that was the plan from the start, and who knows if Lou has other ideas, but at the end of the day I'm sure Shanahan drives the ship forward.
 
Bullfrog said:
Zee said:
Nik the Trik said:
Zee said:
We're really going to look at the last 15 years of Lou with the Devils and criticize it?  7 teams with 100 points or more, a Stanley cup and 3 trips to the finals.  I'd say that's pretty good considering the financial limitations that the Devils have always had.

We could get into a deep dig on the Devils' record over the last little while but for now I'd just say that pre-cap the Devils weren't especially hamstrung salary wise.

That's still a far better performance than any Leafs team in 50 years so I don't know what you're getting at.  Lou's tactics might be outdated, but I can't go back and say he was bad for the Devils despite what that team currently looks like.  I would have enjoyed a Leafs Cup anytime in my life let alone 3 that the Devils won.
Who wouldn't?

But did jersey numbers, few bonuses, and clean faces really contribute to those victories?

I can't answer that, but the idea of "the team first" is what drives those decisions.  I don't think there's anything wrong with telling players that the logo on the jersey and the accomplishment on the ice as a team is far more important than any 1 player.  Working together as a team, you have certain rules, everyone falls in line or you're the odd man out.  They're trying to make a clear distinction that everyone is treated equally, even though in reality we know that's not the case.  I agree some of his rules are stupid, but I'd rather the team build up a structure and identity than every player thinking they can do or act as they see fit.
 
Zee said:
I agree some of his rules are stupid, but I'd rather the team build up a structure and identity than every player thinking they can do or act as they see fit.

Except you're presenting an entirely false choice there. Do you think that in the absence of these rules teams don't build structure? Do you think that a team without these rules ignores the concept of unity or team progress? Do you think there's been a front office in the history of the NHL that didn't try to stress team accomplishments?

Anyone can make up authoritarian nonsense and then try to link it to a collective value. In the absence of any actual reason behind the link though, just the act of wanting policy to translate into effective results isn't terribly persuasive.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top