Next to the seemingly endless guessing game over Mats Sundin’s
future and if it involves the Maple Leafs the biggest question involving the
club, in the eyes of Toronto fans and media, is what the future holds for
defenseman Bryan McCabe.
Leafs management has apparently decided that McCabe’s $5.75
million per season contract is too hefty for the club to continue carrying. GM
Cliff Fletcher asked McCabe if he’d waive his movement clause last February but
the veteran blueliner refused, and according to reports over the off-season continues
in his attempts to convince McCabe to do so.
The problem for the Leafs is that as long as McCabe wants to
be a Maple Leaf there’s nothing they can do to prevent him from doing so.
Suggestions of keeping him out of the lineup, by cutting his
ice time, banishing him to the press box or telling him not to report to the
club quite frankly aren’t wise options for the Leafs, as it could invite legal
challenges from the NHL Players Association, which quite frankly is the last
thing this rebuilding franchise needs.
Engaging in a smear campaign, publicly running him and his
performance down, or trying to stir up fan discontent will only cast the Leafs
organization into the kind of bad light not seen since the dark days of Harold
Ballard’s ownership.
It’s not McCabe’s fault that his contract is now unworkable
for the Maple Leafs. They made the offer, granted, it was Fletcher’s
predecessor who made it, but it had the full blessing of the team’s ownership,
and he accepted in good faith.
The best Fletcher can do is to continue trying to convince
McCabe to move if certain teams that could be of interest to the veteran defenseman
and hope that he accepts, and to respect McCabe’s decision if he wants to
remain in Toronto.
Some fans and pundits probably won’t like that decision, and
will try to paint him as selfish, the exact same kind of slurs that were
undeservedly heaped upon Sundin last February.
McCabe isn’t being selfish if he wants to stay in Toronto,
indeed, to put up with that kind of disparaging nonsense, particularly after
seeing how Sundin was treated, suggests the blueliner has more class and
character than his critics.
But if he decides he doesn't need the abuse and agrees to move on, who could blame him after the lousy way he's been treated?
Either way, this doesn't reflect well on the Maple Leafs organization.
To say that the Leaf management lacks class is one huge understatement. How can they be so collectively immature as to not own up to their own actions. They signed these guys (I'm referring to McCabe and Sundin, heck, even Kaberle) to the no-movement contracts, now live with it. They have to quit trying to use the media to manipulate public opinion so that these guys change their minds. McCabe is still a serviceable defenceman, he never was the superstar they thought he was but that's their own miscalculation. If they can't evaluate talent or work ethic or character, then how can they justify vilifying the guy. Trying to get the fans to turn against him any more than they already have is just pathetic. This has turned into a power struggle, it isn't about the money as they are way under cap with no one to sign.
Why are you (clearthetrack) painting "Leafs management" with the same brush. It looks to me like Fletcher knows that McCabe's contract is ridiculous and is trying to get out of it. Guess what? He has nothing to own up to, since he didn't sign McCabe. And there's no manipulating public opinion, people have been bagging on McCabe (and the dolts who signed him) on their on since he first signed the deal.
And Spec, how are they inviting legal trouble? They can sit him all they want and as long as they keep paying him, he can't say jack. If he wants to play, then he has to waive his NTC/NMC. Simple as that. If Frank Thomas couldn't do anything "legally" against the Blue Jays for dumping him before he had enough at-bats for his bonus to kick in, how can McCabe do anything if the Leafs are still paying for him?
danig: that's where you're wrong. The NHLPA can file a grievance against the Leafs for unfair labor practices if they attempt to banish McCabe. Why do you think Cliff Fletcher was quick to dismiss those possibilities?
It amy not be the ideal option for the Leafs, but would a buy-out work in this situation? Force him to go to another club and take on only part of the salary.
Thanks for the rebuttal, daniq, but the Leafs were more than happy to sign McCabe to this contract (that's why they did it). He was a power-play star the year before and virtually every Leaf fan thought he was another Ray Bourque. Almost no one mentioned his shortcomings because the NHL of that time actually suited his style of play. He was a clutch and grab guy, a body checker whose style is no longer condoned in the league. His biggest problem is that the league kind of passed him by and he's had a tough time readjusting his game which, by the way, is not that bad. It is bad if you look at how much he is making and that's why a lot of fans are ragging on him now. AT any rate, I believe that this is the last year of him making way too much. He get something just over $6 million this year and it drops down to around $4 million for the next two. So, some team will knock at the door next year, the Leafs just have to pay out for this year. Fletcher is only one part of the Leaf management and most of them were around and approving of that deal. They're just trying to re-write history now using Fletcher as a shield. Don't try to defend them on this one, they've handled it poorly. McCabe may have responded if people had just treated him with respect which is a word that Maple Leaf management (and you can include Fletcher in this) have a hard time with.
I don't think it has anything to do with Fletcher. Remember when they said the next GM wouldn't have to worry about answering to the owners like the previous ones did? Well I don't believe one bit of that. Fletcher didn't seem to have many problems giving Pheonix advice and look where they are now.
Anyone who thinks that the Leafs should be allowed to trade him or that Maccabe has any reason to feel obligated to agree to a trade should come to China, where contracts are actually taken as seriously as #### jokes. Wait a minute... 5 years over here and I still haven't heard a Chinese #### joke. Guess you can imagine how seriously contracts are taken.
Imagine a world where teams could have their first round picks stripped of them for shady practices. My god this year's # 6... wonder where we would've ended up. Would be a nice incentive to make sure that the managers kept their heads out of their #### most of the time.
And for crying in the sink... since when was f-a-r-t a bad word? In a half hour kitty cartoon episode you'll like heart them #### half a dozen times and say the word just as many.
I won't pretend to be familiar with the Ontario Labour Code, but if McCabe played in Alberta, and the Oilers or Flames suspended him without cause and/or sat him endlessly in the press box, that could be grounds for a "Constructive Dismissal" complaint.
In California, it could qualify as a "Hostile Work Environment", particularly if management continued to slag the player in the papers concerning his no movement clause.
In either example, it would be fascinating to suit brought forward by the NHLPA in such a situation, and what they would attempt to parlay for damages (i.e. should performance bonuses and option years triggered by player performance be involved).
Danig:
Although the people in management may have changed, McCabe didn't sign his contract with JFJ, he signed it with the Leafs (who had JFJ acting on their behalf). The Leafs (and Fletcher as their new proxy) still have the obligation to honour that contract in good faith, regardless of how many management changes they make. There were no secrets, Fletcher knew what he was getting into when he signed on. I wholeheartedly accept his right to try to trade McCabe (and McCabe's right to refuse), or to buy him out (although I believe it's too late, anyway), but if neither option is possible or acceptable, the contract must be honoured in good faith by the Leafs organization (including Fletcher). For the record, I don't think the run-him-out-of-town talk comes from Fletcher, so I don't think a serious smear campaign is likely (by the organization).
There are a lot of other teams that have grossly overpaid players... how come it's only toronto that wants to give the old west treatment???
also, to clearthetrack, unless someone knows better, I believe that the way the cap hit works is that one takes the average salary over the term of the entire deal. Thus, even though McCabe makes 4$ mil in the last 2 years, the cap hit is still 5.75. He may be slightly less unattractive, because of the shorter term involved, but he won't be coming any cheaper, and so the Leafs will still have a difficult time finding someone to take that hit.
You know, McCabe gets a lot of flak in Toronto because he's yet to lived up to expectations. That said, he's still one of the better players on that roster. The shred tacticians in Toronto need to maybe take a step back and reaffirm their grip on reality.
McCabe is an offensive defenseman whose defensive game isn't exactly Norris-candidate solid. Oh, hey, I can think of two other names that picked up pretty wild contracts with the same skillset: Sheldon Souray and Brian Campbell. Souray made $4M last season, and spent most of it hurt, if I recall correctly. We'll certainly see how Campbell does in Chicago, but don't hold your breath for a Norris.
Just a little perspective on the "Global NHL" situation.
Alexi, regarding the salary cap, you're right, the team would still get hit with the $5.75 million cap hit, but would only have to pay the $4 million. It may not work for every team but some teams would have excess cap room that they could just `waste', so to speak, if they were getting a fair defenceman for $4 million. It wouldn't be money that they were actually spending. And, it's not a world of difference, I was just hypothesizing that it might mean that a couple of extra teams may sniff around. He's not unreasonable at $4 million IMO.
Make no mistake, I didn't say ANYTHING about not honouring his contract or banishing him. I said sitting him. If he's under contract and they send him a pay check every two weeks (or whenever NHLers get paid), they can sit him all they want. I don't see any legal recourse. If he files a grievance and wins, then no coach or GM will ever be allowed to bench a player who is in the "dog house".
What I'm saying is, you let him sit in the press box and collect his paycheck, and if he wants to play all he has to do is accept a trade.
Danig you know it's a great idea, because they're a much better team with him in the line-up and if they sit him they'll have a great chance at winning the #1 overall pick. Really... if Sundin doesn't come back who's going to center the first line? If they think they've got a shot at landing the first overall pick, then I say they should sit him.
danig:they just can't bench him, or any player, without a good reason. Again, they would risk legal action from the NHLPA should McCabe and his agent claim that it's not motivated by his play but rather intent to force him to move. Whether or not not they would be successful in that grievance, the negative press is the last thing the Leafs would need as it would turn into a media circus. And if the McCabe camp were able to successfully prove their case, it would be a huge PR blow for the Maple Leafs,reflecting poorly upon them as an organization and could have an adverse impact upon future contract negotiations with their current players and their attempts to bring UFAs later on.
This is just another bad story for the leafs. They signed a guy to ANOTHER over priced contract. They need to get some new blood in the uper management if they ever want to be taken seriously. They give guys like McCabe, Blake, Tucker, Kubina and Finger big contracts because they have to. Not too many people are jumping at the chance to play for the leafs these days, because of things like this. They're going to have to find a player, a good player, and not over pay him to play there. It seems like last year, edmonton was the team that everyone called "hockey siberia" and no one wanted to play there, this year edmonton will be fighting calgary for the NW division title. This was because of youth plyaers. Toronto seems to trade away youth for over priced vets and now their future is pretty bleek.
Further to Alexei's question, there's a difference between the Salary Cap calculation and Actual Salary paid by the teams.
Let's assume we sign a player to a 5-year, $25 million deal. The salary cap number is $5 million per season: total contract ($25 million) divided by term (5 years). This number is fixed for the life of the contract.
Now, for the actual salary payout, we could front load the deal so the player gets more salary early on and less in the latter part of the deal. Say we do a 10-10-2-2-1 model, so during the first two seasons the player gets $10 million a year, then $2 million a year for the next two seasons, and $1 million in the final year. Still adds up to $25 million over five years, but this way creates cash flow advantages.
Let's say a team like Nashville, Columbus or Phoenix must operate on a real salary budget that is substantially lower than the salary cap limit. The net effect is they will have unused cap space.
Thus, we could trade the player above in his third, fourth or fifth contract year to one of these teams and they would only be on the hook for $1 to $2 million per season in real dollars while at the same time soaking up some of their unused cap space.
How can they not bench him? There are scratches all the time. Are you telling me that every play on the roster dresses for every game? What's the grievance, "He's not playing"? So what? He'd still be collecting a paycheck. If that's a grievance then any player who sits out a game for any reason, or any goalie who isn't started can file a grievance. Why didn't Andrew Raycroft file a grievance when he lost the starting job to Vesa Toskala? Why didn't Ray Emery file a grievance when he asked for a trade and Bryan Murray didn't grant his wish? Why didn't Chris Chelios file a grievance when he sat out most of the Cup finals this year? They can't just cut him or release him, this isn't the NFL, so if they still pay him then what possible leg would he have to stand on if he filed a grievance.
I'm Lyle Richardson, also known as Spector, Foxsports.com 's "Prince of Pucks".,which is based on the fact I live in Prince Edward Island, Canada and I couldn't think of a better byline. I've been an NHL hockey commentator since 1998 on my website, Spector's Hockey, and I'm a contributing writer for Foxsports.com , The Hockey News and Eishockey News. I'm also a regular on The Faceoff Hockey Show and a frequent guest on "The Late Crew" on The Team 1200 Ottawa.
