First things first, it looks like Ottawa tried to play their normal game upside down -- lead with the strong energy, then try like crazy to go flat. Fortunately they got enough of a jump out of the gate that the late-game collapse couldn't quite cancel out the early effort. I listened to the game on the radio (over the internet, natch) and it sounded to me like the team started with good energy and discipline while Carolina came out flat. Alex Auld comes off as the hero despite letting a soft goal, while "starter in training" Brian Elliot cooled his heels.This adjusts the Futility Meter to -13, 6-2-2.
But what got me thinking this morning was a post from Dean Brown on Mats Sundin's return to Toronto, and the resurrection of all the debate about how last season ended. While he does try to come at the debate from a balanced and even-handed view, he does come to the wrong conclusion:
The actions of Mats Sundin do not match his words. It doesn’t diminish his contribution to the Leafs for 13 years it just means he had a no trade clause, no desire to move and no concern about what that might do to the Leafs. It’s not what he said it’s what he did that tells the story.The bottom line should be that Sundin had a contract with the Leafs. Contracts are agreements, whereby one party agrees to do something and the other party agrees to do something in exchange. When Sundin (or his agent, but let's keep this simple here) negotiated the contract, the value to Sundin was the entire package. A no-trade clause is something that has value to both parties, in that if the player is willing to accept such a clause in exchange for less money, then the team doesn't have to pony up the extra money.
Look at it this way. What if the team had gone to Mats and said hey there, you know we're only six points out of the playoffs and we think that with a little tweaking we can really make a run at it and go deep this year. But we're tight on cap space for this year, so can you just agree to waive a million dollars from this year's salary so we can pick up someone to help?
Put that way, I doubt that there'd be anybody who'd give Sundin a hard time about saying no. Putting aside the fact that the league wouldn't let the team do that, it would be insane for a player to waive negotiated compensation. A no-trade clause is also compensation, and I don't see what at all was different.
The team had a deal with Sundin, and arguably got their money's worth. The fact that in trying to save a bit of money they dug themselves a hole with no-trade clause(s) with strategic players in no way increases the responsibility of the player(s) to help the team dig up.
That some players did anyways is perhaps a credit to them; but expecting the exceptional makes it unexceptional.
Sundin's fine words to the media was a spin to "justify" him doing what was fully within his contract agreement. To try to hang him later with them is no better than ambush news reporting.
