When Toronto Maple Leafs' general manager Brian Burke pulled off the blockbuster, seven-player deal that netted him Dion Phaneuf (amongst others) late last season, it was thought that—given the fact that Burke had brought in the best player in the deal (Phaneuf)—that the Maple Leafs had won the trade.
Clearly, shortsighted predictions can nip you in the butt in the long term, but when you look at the overall records of both the Calgary Flames and the Toronto Maple Leafs, as well as the seven players' (some of which have been traded for parts) output, the trade seems to be a wash.
At least at this point.
Upon his anointment as team captain for the Maple Leafs, many felt that Phaneuf, like so many other captains before him, would be exposed to adversity, scrutiny and—to some extent—unfair expectations predicated by both the media and the fans of the Blue and White.
Thus far, Phaneuf has enjoyed a surprisingly easy first season as the Maple Leafs team captain. In fact, Phaneuf has been afforded a tremendous amount of slack from both the media and the fans. One may even say that he has been unaccountable and eerily silent.
This season has been void of any inspirational quotes from Phaneuf and his on-ice performance has been mediocre at best.
Sure, the Maple Leafs' record with Phaneuf in the lineup may be a few percentage points better than without him, but it is very hard to quantify what he does on the ice that is making an impact on the team's performance.
Case in point, on a team that is desperate for goals, Phaneuf has managed just one goal on the season, a feat he accomplished on December 14thagainst the Edmonton Oilers.
Phaneuf’s eight points in 28 games equates to a paltry 0.28 points per game, a far cry from the 0.40 points per game he was averaging with the Flames prior to joining the Buds. It's an even bigger gap when you consider his career high of 60 points in 82 games with the Flames during the 2007-2008 campaign, which equates to 0.69 points per game.
The reality is, through 54 games with the Maple Leafs, Phaneuf has just three goals and a total of 18 points. That equates to 0.33 points per game, which just isn’t good enough for a player that carries a cap hit of $6.5 million.
Worse yet, for a player that averages 3:30 of power-play time per game, Phaneuf has yet to score a power-play marker, and has no goals and just four assists on the PP this season.
Mediocre five-on-five play followed by questionable power-play output is enough to make a case that Phaneuf simply is not pulling his weight. Never mind the fact that he rarely fights, never mind the fact that his bone-crushing hits (he has 43 hits on the season through 28 games) look to be a thing of the past. The fact is Phaneuf is living a very quiet existence here in Toronto, both on and off the ice.
Those in the know (mainly Brian Burke and Leafs' head coach Ron Wilson) say that Phaneuf has been the catalyst behind the Maple Leafs' change in attitude. Given the fact that not much has changed in the standings and that the team has been void of any personality for much of the season, the question I would pose to Burke and Wilson is this: what attitude change are we talking about here?
This group of Maple Leafs rarely plays any bigger than last season’s edition. Sure, Luke Schenn looks to be hitting more, as does Francois Beauchemin, but Phaneuf (who had 69 hits in 26 games for the Maple Leafs in 2009-10) is taking a nose-dive in that department, which is not what he was brought to Toronto for, was it?
Leafs fans could accept Phaneuf’s disinterest in hitting if he was getting it done on the scoreboard and the fact is, he is not. Perhaps the Leafs Nation could cut Phaneuf some slack if he was contributing exceptional numbers on the power play—sadly, he is not.
Let’s face it, Leaf fans, as good as Phaneuf has been in spurts, he has failed to make an impact and unless he changes the way he plays, we’ll probably never see him reach the potential that everyone in the hockey world thought he could hit after his first three years in the NHL.
Can you imagine if a player of Phaneuf’s ilk was selected as the captain of the Montreal Canadiens and proceeded to play as poorly as he has in Toronto there? They would be serving his ribs at the Bar-B-Barn! And that’s no word of a lie!
Phaneuf has three years left on his contract after this season. Each of them carries a cap hit of $6.5 million. It would be nice if Phaneuf started to earn his paycheck—then again, Toronto always seems to forgive their under-performing players—lord knows we Leaf fans have endured many.
Until next time.
Showing posts with label void. Show all posts
Showing posts with label void. Show all posts
Monday, January 17, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
'American Idol': Will all the new changes fill the void left by Simon Cowell?
When “American Idol” returns for its 10th season on Fox Jan. 19, it will have two fresh (and very famous) faces at the judges’ table. And it will also feature, the network promises, a renewed focus on the warbling would-be stars who are supposed to be the singing smash’s reason for existence in the first place.
Ah, but something will be missing. Oh, right — the sassy guy with the flattop and tight T-shirts.
The big suspense surrounding the new “Idol” isn’t whether Steven Tyler will be introduced as Liv Tyler’s father or Jennifer Lopez will salvage her fading career. The Aerosmith frontman and Bronx-born J-Lo were picked as new judges amid a seemingly endless carnival of speculation last summer. Instead, the real story centers on whether the show will survive the departure of Simon Cowell, the caustic lead judge who rode his merciless putdowns of auditioners to high-powered stardom.
The stakes are incredibly high for Fox. “Idol” is the No. 1 series on television and has propelled Fox to repeated victories in the crucial demographic of adults ages 18 to 49, according to the Nielsen Co. The singing contest has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for Fox and made it nearly impossible for ABC and NBC to compete in midweek during the winter and spring months.
CBS, the most-watched network, has fared much better but has nevertheless been held to a counterprogramming strategy, batting back the “Idol” threat with franchise crime series such as “Criminal Minds” and “NCIS,” which skew heavily toward older viewers. And at a time when broadcasting was supposed to be slumping off into irrelevance, “Idol” proved that 30 million viewers will still crowd around a network show, provided it’s the right network show.
At least for the record, Fox executives insist there’s little cause for concern. “Idol” — produced by Fremantle Media and 19 Entertainment — just needs a few tweaks and, in any event, a somewhat less big “Idol” is still huge.
“For any show in its 10th season to be holding up as well as ‘Idol’ is a testament to the show,” said Preston Beckman, Fox’s research and scheduling guru. “It’s been about 60 percent higher than the next highest-rated show, so worst-case scenario, it’ll still be the biggest show on television.”
“Idol” indeed has a long way to fall before it could be considered in trouble. It has been the No. 1 program for a record six straight years — longer than any show, scripted or otherwise, including “All in the Family,” “The Cosby Show” and “I Love Lucy.”
This season, the network is hoping “Idol” can push it to the top of the heap on Thursdays, a night where Fox has historically been weak. Executives made the decision to move the results show there (after following a Tuesday-Wednesday schedule in years past) after CBS pulled “Survivor” off the night.
“We could go into next season as the No. 1 network on Thursday night,” Beckman said.
But there is a sense that Fox is on the defensive, that the network must stop more air from escaping the “Idol” balloon. Last May’s finale drew 24.2 million total viewers — still an enormous figure, but “Idol’s” worst season closer since its first back in 2002. Critics griped about the perceived blandness of the contestants, including runner-up Crystal Bowersox and the self-effacing winner Lee DeWyze.
Even the show’s once formidable infrastructure seemed out of whack. Ellen DeGeneres, who was hired to replace Paula Abdul on the judge’s table, proved an awkward fit. Trying to accommodate reactions from a quartet of judges — actually the same number as on “Pop Idol,” the show’s British predecessor — threw off the pacing and often made the program run long. Cowell exited after last season to prepare his own talent contest, “The X Factor,” for a Fox run later this year.
“In the past couple years, it was like so much oxygen seemed to be consumed by everything going on the judges’ panel that the poor kids hardly had a chance to introduce themselves,” said Richard Rushfield, author of the forthcoming book “‘American Idol’: The Untold Story.”
Perhaps as a result, the last few crops of “Idol” singers haven’t broken through to mainstream success the way earlier performers did, such as Season 1’s Kelly Clarkson, Season 4’s Carrie Underwood and Season 5’s Chris Daughtry (who did not win or make the finals of the contest).
“The biggest thing that ‘Idol’ needs to do this year,” Rushfield said, “is produce a major recording star. They haven’t done that in a lot of years, and it’s sort of the premise of the show.”
Thus, what those close to the show promise will be a return to roots. Nigel Lythgoe, the producer and “So You Think You Can Dance” judge who left “Idol” in 2008 after reportedly tangling with Cowell, has come back to oversee the show.
Meanwhile, the producers are hoping to beef up “Idol’s” musical credibility with the addition of Jimmy Iovine, a leading record producer and music-label executive who will serve as a permanent mentor to the contestants.
“He’s going to fill some of that Simon void, of being the industry veteran who’s not going to pull any punches,” Fox’s Beckman said. “Even though he’s not going to be a judge, he’s going to have an impact throughout the season on the kids.”
The very fact that Fox is talking about a “Simon void” suggests how much “Idol” must prove this season. Whether Tyler, J-Lo & Co. are up to the task remains to be seen. Early promos have given little indication what type of style the new judges will bring (Randy Jackson is the only one of the original three judges to remain).
“He was the master of brutal honesty, but he really knew the business,” industry analyst Shari Anne Brill said of Cowell. “If the replacements and the new formatting of the show (don’t) get people from the beginning, it’s going to hurt.”
But a few weeks can make a huge difference in the life of a TV show. When “Idol” premiered during the summer of 2002, few viewers or media outlets paid it much attention at first. And practically no one had ever heard of Simon Cowell.
Ah, but something will be missing. Oh, right — the sassy guy with the flattop and tight T-shirts.
The big suspense surrounding the new “Idol” isn’t whether Steven Tyler will be introduced as Liv Tyler’s father or Jennifer Lopez will salvage her fading career. The Aerosmith frontman and Bronx-born J-Lo were picked as new judges amid a seemingly endless carnival of speculation last summer. Instead, the real story centers on whether the show will survive the departure of Simon Cowell, the caustic lead judge who rode his merciless putdowns of auditioners to high-powered stardom.
The stakes are incredibly high for Fox. “Idol” is the No. 1 series on television and has propelled Fox to repeated victories in the crucial demographic of adults ages 18 to 49, according to the Nielsen Co. The singing contest has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for Fox and made it nearly impossible for ABC and NBC to compete in midweek during the winter and spring months.
CBS, the most-watched network, has fared much better but has nevertheless been held to a counterprogramming strategy, batting back the “Idol” threat with franchise crime series such as “Criminal Minds” and “NCIS,” which skew heavily toward older viewers. And at a time when broadcasting was supposed to be slumping off into irrelevance, “Idol” proved that 30 million viewers will still crowd around a network show, provided it’s the right network show.
At least for the record, Fox executives insist there’s little cause for concern. “Idol” — produced by Fremantle Media and 19 Entertainment — just needs a few tweaks and, in any event, a somewhat less big “Idol” is still huge.
“For any show in its 10th season to be holding up as well as ‘Idol’ is a testament to the show,” said Preston Beckman, Fox’s research and scheduling guru. “It’s been about 60 percent higher than the next highest-rated show, so worst-case scenario, it’ll still be the biggest show on television.”
“Idol” indeed has a long way to fall before it could be considered in trouble. It has been the No. 1 program for a record six straight years — longer than any show, scripted or otherwise, including “All in the Family,” “The Cosby Show” and “I Love Lucy.”
This season, the network is hoping “Idol” can push it to the top of the heap on Thursdays, a night where Fox has historically been weak. Executives made the decision to move the results show there (after following a Tuesday-Wednesday schedule in years past) after CBS pulled “Survivor” off the night.
“We could go into next season as the No. 1 network on Thursday night,” Beckman said.
But there is a sense that Fox is on the defensive, that the network must stop more air from escaping the “Idol” balloon. Last May’s finale drew 24.2 million total viewers — still an enormous figure, but “Idol’s” worst season closer since its first back in 2002. Critics griped about the perceived blandness of the contestants, including runner-up Crystal Bowersox and the self-effacing winner Lee DeWyze.
Even the show’s once formidable infrastructure seemed out of whack. Ellen DeGeneres, who was hired to replace Paula Abdul on the judge’s table, proved an awkward fit. Trying to accommodate reactions from a quartet of judges — actually the same number as on “Pop Idol,” the show’s British predecessor — threw off the pacing and often made the program run long. Cowell exited after last season to prepare his own talent contest, “The X Factor,” for a Fox run later this year.
“In the past couple years, it was like so much oxygen seemed to be consumed by everything going on the judges’ panel that the poor kids hardly had a chance to introduce themselves,” said Richard Rushfield, author of the forthcoming book “‘American Idol’: The Untold Story.”
Perhaps as a result, the last few crops of “Idol” singers haven’t broken through to mainstream success the way earlier performers did, such as Season 1’s Kelly Clarkson, Season 4’s Carrie Underwood and Season 5’s Chris Daughtry (who did not win or make the finals of the contest).
“The biggest thing that ‘Idol’ needs to do this year,” Rushfield said, “is produce a major recording star. They haven’t done that in a lot of years, and it’s sort of the premise of the show.”
Thus, what those close to the show promise will be a return to roots. Nigel Lythgoe, the producer and “So You Think You Can Dance” judge who left “Idol” in 2008 after reportedly tangling with Cowell, has come back to oversee the show.
Meanwhile, the producers are hoping to beef up “Idol’s” musical credibility with the addition of Jimmy Iovine, a leading record producer and music-label executive who will serve as a permanent mentor to the contestants.
“He’s going to fill some of that Simon void, of being the industry veteran who’s not going to pull any punches,” Fox’s Beckman said. “Even though he’s not going to be a judge, he’s going to have an impact throughout the season on the kids.”
The very fact that Fox is talking about a “Simon void” suggests how much “Idol” must prove this season. Whether Tyler, J-Lo & Co. are up to the task remains to be seen. Early promos have given little indication what type of style the new judges will bring (Randy Jackson is the only one of the original three judges to remain).
“He was the master of brutal honesty, but he really knew the business,” industry analyst Shari Anne Brill said of Cowell. “If the replacements and the new formatting of the show (don’t) get people from the beginning, it’s going to hurt.”
But a few weeks can make a huge difference in the life of a TV show. When “Idol” premiered during the summer of 2002, few viewers or media outlets paid it much attention at first. And practically no one had ever heard of Simon Cowell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)