What happened to the Toronto Maple Leafs?

[Sergei Bure]

I did a similar thread about Montreal long time ago, the Canadiens haven't won the Stanley Cup in 32 years, but contrary to Toronto they were able to have some success in the "modern era" before things started going wrong in the 90's with the lost of identity, because of bad decisions, bad GM's, bad drafting, and the Roy trade being the icing on the cake. Toronto on the other hand haven't won the Stanley Cup in almost 60 years, and they haven't reached a final since their last triumph in 1967 against the Montreal Canadiens. What happened to this franchise, it was just a total inability to adapt to the modern era? Which funny enough, started with the expansion of 6 teams after the Maple Leafs won their last cup...

 

[The Panther]

We all know what a horrible effect Harold Ballard had on the Maple Leafs' organization from the early-1970s (if not earlier) to the early 1990s. Just complete and total incompetence at the executive level, with uncalled-for interference in team management, player personnel, etc. Lack of respect for players and fans. Horrible development, poor coaching hires, embarrassing (sometimes disgusting) P.R., etc.

The Leafs then had some success from 1992-93 through 2003-04... But I wonder how much of that was canny management and how much was the team's deep pockets for free-agent spending, being one of the few (in some ways, the only) Canadian franchise(s) that didn't suffer durng that era financially.

During the aforementioned 1992-93 through 2003-04 period, the Leafs were the 7th-best franchise during the regular season, and even had some playoff success, going to the third round four times.

So, looking at the modern-era post-Ballard years, they were doing fairly well up to the Lock Out.

What really killed the franchise's respect was the post Lock-Out years, which was 10 out of 11 seasons missing the playoffs (and when they did make it in -- once -- they lost in the first round).

Since 2016-17, they've generally been one of the better teams in the regular season -- in fact, the 3rd-best club over that nine-year span. (Probably the best 9-year span they've had since the late-50s to early 60s?) But a complete lack of playoff success has magnified every error.

 

[Fenway]

I did a similar thread about Montreal long time ago, the Canadiens haven't won the Stanley Cup in 32 years, but contrary to Toronto they were able to have some success in the "modern era" before things started going wrong in the 90's with the lost of identity, because of bad decisions, bad GM's, bad drafting, and the Roy trade being the icing on the cake. Toronto on the other hand haven't won the Stanley Cup in almost 60 years, and they haven't reached a final since their last triumph in 1967 against the Montreal Canadiens. What happened to this franchise, it was just a total inability to adapt to the modern era? Which funny enough, started with the expansion of 6 teams after the Maple Leafs won their last cup...

The demise started in the early 1960s when the brain trust decided that a young player from Parry Sound was too small to play in the NHL.

Then came

 

[Fenway]

If you look at the timeline, the Leafs could have seen Orr playing on that 1966-67 team.

Ballard died in 1990, and I can not explain the Leafs' struggles since then.

 

[JFedol]

Harold f***ing Ballard to an extent lol

 

[Johnny Engine]

The demise started in the early 1960s when the brain trust decided that a young player from Parry Sound was too small to play in the NHL.

Then came

They decided they weren't going to bend their rules to sponsor a 12 year old. If that's what you mean by "too small", that's fine, but by the time Bobby Orr was anywhere near his eventual adult size (above average for an NHL player in his rookie year) he was well and truly spoken for.

The Leafs then had some success from 1992-93 through 2003-04... But I wonder how much of that was canny management and how much was the team's deep pockets for free-agent spending, being one of the few (in some ways, the only) Canadian franchise(s) that didn't suffer durng that era financially.

Funny thing is, the prevailing feeling during that period was that the ownership was too content with filling the building every night to take massive Red Wings style swings at building super teams. At the 1999 deadline with their first potential contender in a while, they replaced an injured Korolev with Perreault and nothing else. In 2001 Colorado got Blake from the Kings and the Leafs got Berg. In 2002 Yushkevich was on the shelf, but Karel Pilar was filling his shows admirably enough that they did nothing. After that, the big Nolan and Leetch acquisitions were a shift in strategy, but didn't get them any further than they had before.

I think it's notable that the Leafs failed miserably to adapt to both the end of sponsorship and the introduction of the cap. In corporate terms, they're the opposite of what you'd call "light on their feet", and get caught flat footed every time something changes. Additionally, I think the organization attracts the power hungry and egotistical, so every few years it's Ferguson pushing out Quinn, or Anselmi pushing out Burke, or Dubas pushing out Babcock, literally anything other than people making cooperative decisions for the good of the franchise. If the One Ring exists outside of Tolkien's work, it's sitting in the GM's office at Scotiabank Arena.

 

[Fenway]

They decided they weren't going to bend their rules to sponsor a 12 year old. If that's what you mean by "too small", that's fine, but by the time Bobby Orr was anywhere near his eventual adult size (above average for an NHL player in his rookie year) he was well and truly spoken for.

Orr worshipped the Leafs growing up

Maybe the Leafs scoffed that Boston liked him as a 12-year-old, but Milt Schmidt saw something in a tournament in Gananoque. Sometimes you have to bend the rules, and the Leafs didn't.

But Ballard has to be the worst owner of all time.

 

[JianYang]

First real memories I have are the pat burns leafs. They were structured, as burns teams usually are. They had some success reaching a couple conference finals in a row.

Then we get into the sundin era which takes you until the late 2000s. There were some good teams in there, but never really a team you would consider a significant cup threat. They kept trying to reload instead of a serious investment in a youth movement which eventually got them to hit rock bottom.

Which brings us to the last decade and the matthews era. It's by far the most talented era of the leafs that I've seen, but the playoff record remains dismal with only 2 playoff wins in that time. This era of the team reminds me of the Sharks under Doug Wilson ... but even the Sharks made the finals once although some of their best guys were past their prime by that point.

If I could point to one issue that has plagued this franchise over these decades, I guess it would be the general unwillingness to invest in a long term youth plan. That only happened just prior to the matthews era.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It really is amazing when you look at the franchise history and see the complete lack of truly great players. That's their Achillies heel

Matthews the greatest skater in franchise history and the only player who can really be argued against him for greatest player in franchise history is Bower.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It really is amazing when you look at the franchise history and see the complete lack of truly great players. That's their Achillies heel

Matthews the greatest skater in franchise history and the only player who can really be argued against him for greatest player in franchise history is Bower.

Apps, Kennedy, Horton, Conacher, Broda, and Clancy all quite easily clear Matthews from an all time perspective. Mahovlich too, but that's taking into account his time elsewhere.

I still put Keon and Gilmour ahead too, but those will conceivably fall soon.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Apps, Kennedy, Horton, Conacher, Broda, and Clancy all quite easily clear Matthews from an all time perspective. Mahovlich too, but that's taking into account his time elsewhere.

I still put Keon and Gilmour ahead too, but those will conceivably fall soon.

Based on what exactly? Cups? Reputation?

Because Matthews has already hit a level of individual success none of those players hit except for maybe Conacher. 5 "Rockets" vs 3 for Matthews with Matthews having the 1-2 Hart finishes vs 2-4

 

[jigglysquishy]

Based on what exactly? Cups? Reputation?

Because Matthews has already hit a level of individual success none of those players hit except for maybe Conacher. 5 "Rockets" vs 3 for Matthews with Matthews having the 1-2 Hart finishes vs 2-4

We rank on this forum far beyond simple trophy counting.

All the aforementioned were substantially better playoff performers.

For Conacher, it wasn't just leading in goals, but leading in points twice too. He was a much better goal scorer than playmaker, but was a very strong playmaker too.

 

[JackSlater]

Toronto should have dominated the NHL even more than it did prior to 1967 given the massive number of elite players in Ontario. Giving away guys like Lindsay and Kelly probably cost them a few Stanley Cups, or at least won some for Detroit. Regardless, clearly the organization was not as well run as Montreal was, even before Ballard.

Biggest single mistake was probably letting Selke go to Montreal. Selke laid the groundwork (carried on my Pollock) for Montreal's decades of domination, and Toronto had him first.

It really is amazing when you look at the franchise history and see the complete lack of truly great players. That's their Achillies heel

Matthews the greatest skater in franchise history and the only player who can really be argued against him for greatest player in franchise history is Bower.

Even glossing over the overrating of Matthews, where even by a fairly mindless trophy counting exercise Conacher has him beaten... how is Bower the choice? I've never seen it suggested that Bower is the greatest player in franchise history. He isn't even the most popular choice for greatest goaltender in franchise history over Broda.

 

[GMR]

I did a similar thread about Montreal long time ago, the Canadiens haven't won the Stanley Cup in 32 years, but contrary to Toronto they were able to have some success in the "modern era" before things started going wrong in the 90's with the lost of identity, because of bad decisions, bad GM's, bad drafting, and the Roy trade being the icing on the cake. Toronto on the other hand haven't won the Stanley Cup in almost 60 years, and they haven't reached a final since their last triumph in 1967 against the Montreal Canadiens. What happened to this franchise, it was just a total inability to adapt to the modern era? Which funny enough, started with the expansion of 6 teams after the Maple Leafs won their last cup...

Neither Toronto nor Montreal have obtained many superstars over the last 30 years. Whether through draft, free agency, trades.

Yeah, you'll give me a few names here and there (Sundin, Price, Matthews), but that's not enough for two franchises playing in huge hockey markets over that timespan.

 

[MadLuke]

I think what sting them a bit is a lack of Cinderella run, they never over performed in a very long time, no Halak or 2021 cup final like the Habs, or even in a way 1993.

The conference finals 93-94 Gilmour Leafs the conference finals Sundin (the 99-04 Leafs won at least a round 5 out of 6 years, that excellent), 3 most playoff win in the league just behind the Avs, Devils that more than the mighty Red Wings, same as the Stars.

They were among the top spender during that time, spending around 50% more than say Vancouver, 33% more than Montreal, with how low and fast the dollar dropped from 1990 to 2001, adjusted for that factor they were spending about the same as the Stars-Avs if not more...

Maybe they did not really underperform both windows, teams winning cups were better usually or had Gretzky beating them, but not a single lucky break. Same for the not winning a single round from 2005 to 2023, you need to lose in game 7 OT type of affair for that to happen, when you are a full spending team with the most resource in the league pretty much all that time.

Not saying solid run that did not win because of badluck-break-freak injury, just the lack of good luck make it look worst for the modern Leaf. A bit like Ovechkin capitals never getting out of the second round all that time, that a couple of bounce in the other direction phenomenon in a high variance sport.. You need a very large gap, for you to have a good chance of winning 4 round in a row.

 

[Staniowski]

The Leafs did very well, overall, in the O6. They had some advantage over the American teams in signing players, but not the same advantage that Montreal had, where the French language was favorable to the Habs, plus Quebec was producing a lot of star players.

Harold Ballard was a disaster for the Leafs, throwing away the '70s and '80s. Actually they had some pretty good success in the '70s, with Salming, Sittler, McDonald around the same age, plus a half-decent goalie in Palmateer, and with Tiger Williams and Ian Turnbull. But they weren't able to build upon that.

A lot of team success in the draft era comes down to two things: 1) good management and 2) luck. Both of these things can take you a long way.

Look at the Islanders and Oilers in the '80s. The Isles drafted arguably the 3 best players drafted into the entire NHL over a roughly 7 year period - Potvin, Trottier, Bossy. That's really unbelievably lucky (and a little bit good management).

And the Oilers...in the '79 and '80 drafts, their haul is incredible...plus Gretzky who's the same age as these guys. So they've got their entire core more or less the same age.

It's difficult to have that kind of luck.

The Leafs were lucky to draft Matthews, Nylander, and Marner all about the same time, and adding Tavares at the same time. But, not unlike in the '70s, they haven't been able to significantly build on it.

Management...it certainly can make a difference. Imagine if they had prime Cliff Fletcher in the 1980s. His Flames were at the absolute forefront of drafting and bringing over Europeans like Rautakallio, Eloranta, Nilsson, Loob, then Hrdina, Makarov, etc., and they also led in the pursuit of US college players. These management advantages made the Flames a top team of the '80s and into the '90s.

The wealth of the Leafs franchise can be a bad thing also, and it has been sometimes for the hockey team.

They're in tough to win the current round, but I'm kinda cheering for them to make the Finals. Their fans deserve a little happiness!

 

[Brodeur]

Funny thing is, the prevailing feeling during that period was that the ownership was too content with filling the building every night to take massive Red Wings style swings at building super teams. At the 1999 deadline with their first potential contender in a while, they replaced an injured Korolev with Perreault and nothing else. In 2001 Colorado got Blake from the Kings and the Leafs got Berg. In 2002 Yushkevich was on the shelf, but Karel Pilar was filling his shows admirably enough that they did nothing. After that, the big Nolan and Leetch acquisitions were a shift in strategy, but didn't get them any further than they had before.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/blake-talked-contract-with-leafs-1.280125

Not sure if Toronto would have been able to top Colorado's offer for Blake. LA was still in the playoff hunt so they wanted NHL pieces back (Deadmarsh/Miller) on top of picks/prospects. This article also mentions that Toronto was hesitant to acquire Blake if he wasn't willing to sign an immediate extension.

Allegedly the Devils offered a futures based package for Blake but were turned down. The consolation prize ended up being Sean O'Donnell who was a terrible fit for the Devils that run.

The Bryan Berard injury was definitely unfortunate. I hate to think of it in these terms, but he probably would have been a useful trade asset after 2000.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Since 2016-17, they've generally been one of the better teams in the regular season -- in fact, the 3rd-best club over that nine-year span. (Probably the best 9-year span they've had since the late-50s to early 60s?) But a complete lack of playoff success has magnified every error.

What they lack in success, they have gained in respect, in the handshake line.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think what sting them a bit is a lack of Cinderella run, they never over performed in a very long time, no Halak or 2021 cup final like the Habs, or even in a way 1993.

The conference finals 93-94 Gilmour Leafs the conference finals Sundin (the 99-04 Leafs won at least a round 5 out of 6 years, that excellent), 3 most playoff win in the league just behind the Avs, Devils that more than the mighty Red Wings, same as the Stars.

They were among the top spender during that time, spending around 50% more than say Vancouver, 33% more than Montreal, with how low and fast the dollar dropped from 1990 to 2001, adjusted for that factor they were spending about the same as the Stars-Avs if not more...

They maybe did not really underperformed both windows, teams winning cups were better, but not a single lucky break. Same for the not winning a single round from 2005 to 2023, you need to loose in game 7 OT type of affair for that to happen, when you are a full spending team with the most resource in the league pretty much all that time.

Not saying solid run that did not win because of badluck-break-freak injury, just the lack of good luck make it look worst for the modern Leaf.

A surprising fact - between 1993 and 2002, the Leafs were #4 in the NHL in playoff games and playoff wins (behind only Detroit, Colorado and New Jersey). Only the Red Wings and Avalanche had more trips to the conference finals. It's easy to say this with hindsight, but obviously they would have preferred to trade a few second- and third-round exits for just one trip to the Cup finals.

 

[WarriorofTime]

They never quite figured out the Draft. A lot of time spent in the middle, leaving them with a draft history that left a good bit to be desired. Their best era post-expansion was the Free Agency/No Salary Cap Era where they were a big spender and had good teams, but never quite good enough because Free Agency was older ages and they didn't have the same elite draft foundation as the best teams of the era. Trying to keep that going too long put them in a bad spot when the salary cap took over. Burke delayed their rebuild years with the foolish trade of unprotected 1sts for Phil Kessel. Then they eventually figured out the cyclical nature of the draft/salary cap system, and got their best run of draft picks with Nylander, Marner, Matthews with high picks and some other good players as well. This has lead to a strong run of salary cap era success for the Leafs, and while the dirt is continuously piled on them [enough has already been said in media/fan discussion about the good or bad management decisions pertaining to this particular era], we'll see if it can translate to a Cup or at least finals appearance.

 

[MadLuke]

where they were a big spender

Also, because of the Sundin for Clarke trade which was a steal and made up for not having that big first overall pick in a very direct way. Sundin was not an first overall he was an above average one of that era.

That Kessel trade being a bit similar and could have worked really well, that a way around the previous always in the middle, middling draft for an high octane pick one.

2010 ending up with a second overall make it look bad, but adding Kessel without trading away any player for him was not supposed to lead to that, they were supposed to be out of the lottery.

 

[sr edler]

They had a guy who calls himself "Stellicktricity" GMing the club.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That Kessel trade being a bit similar and could have worked really well, that a way around the previous always in the middle, middling draft for an high octane pick one.

2010 ending up with a second overall make it look bad, but adding Kessel without trading away any player for him was not supposed to lead to that, they were supposed to be out of the lottery.

Was a bit optimistic, I think yeah? They were 7th to last in 2008-09, had just drafted L. Schenn and Kadri with pretty high picks but given nature of players in those spots, know they were a few years away from making positive NHL level contributions. Rask (2005 Draft) already punted away, Jiri Tlusty (2006 Draft) mid-1st already trending towards just a guy, no 2007 1st Round Draft pick.

No real reason to think 34-35-13 mediocre team of mostly guys aged 25-31 (leading scorer Jason Blake was 35) that was 30th in goals against was on verge of a breakthrough to warrant adding a good winger in Kessel (already three seasons in, could at least be confident not a franchise gamebreaker even if good top line talent).

Best case scenario was likely they stayed middling for longer, which doesn't make the draft pick trade as visibly bad but still has effect of delaying the inevitable cycle that eventually is all roads inevitably lead to drafting Auston Matthews 1st overall.

Think Burke over-estimated his role with Anaheim and some of the fortuitous circumstances that allowed their quick salary cap turn to champions (still some good '03 finalist pieces around, recent draft picks in Getzlaf/Perry ready to explode, Pronger not wanting to stay in Edmonton with American wife, Niedermayer wanting to play with brother) and thought he could quick-fix Toronto, likely overselling himself when taking the job to begin with.

 

[MadLuke]

Was a bit optimistic, I think yeah?

Yes I imagine GM tend to be but they added Beauchemin-Phaneuf-Kessel, i.e. the 2 biggest minute D and what they thought the biggest minutes forward addition to their team.

Komisarek as well, that was in part a mis-evalution of impact player would have, how good they really were, but expecting very different result with that much change is not crazy. Gettting Phaneuf-Kessel, that was getting 2 high draft pick in a sense.

Like you say the guy had giant success after success, throwing haymaker (The Sedins was seen as quite the move by now, Ducks had the cup), , building around Phaneuf, that Kessel trades, they were big move, they type that if they work make up for middle of the road drafting history.

The overall strategy was sound I think, just bad execution, Komisarek at 4.5 in that time, that was just bad, I think way worse than taking a chance on a Kessel potential game breaking talent. In a cap world that type of contract can tie you more than loosing what should have been middle of the roads picks...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Yes I imagine GM tend to be but they added Beauchemin-Phaneuf-Kessel, i.e. the 2 biggest minute D and what they thought the biggest minutes forward addition to their team.

Komisarek as well, that was in part a mis-evalution of impact player would have good, how good they really were, but expecting very different result with that much change is not crazy. Gettting Phaneuf-Kessel, that was getting 2 high draft pick in a sense.

Like you say the guy had giant success after success, throwing haymaker (The Sedins was seen as quite the move by now, Ducks had the cup), , building around Phaneuf, that Kessel trades, they were big move, they type that if they work make up for middle of the road drafting history.

The overall strategy was sound I think, just bad execution, Komisarek at 4.5 in that time, that was just bad, I think way worse than taking a chance on a Kessel potential game breaking talent. In a cap world that type of contract can tie you more than loosing what should have been middle of the roads picks...

yeah it obviously didnt work out, but hard to fault them for being optimistic about adding 24 yr old Phaneuf and 22 yr old Kessel. like you said, they basically added 2 Top 5 picks without having to wait for them to develop