Maple Leafs Management Sending Mixed Messages to Fans  

Combining these comments makes it seem like the message is less about the Core Four and more about creating team unity and chemistry.  

Deconstructing the Messages Put Forth by Maple Leafs Management

Shanahan’s statements had a different tone. He talked more about the accumulative failures over his tenure and the need to improve. At one point, he stated, “We have looked back and had different experiences where, if you were to just live in a vacuum and view this one playoff, you might have a different view of our team, the optimism, and the closeness of where we were. We can’t think that way anymore after seeing what we’ve seen year after year after year.”

Shanahan and Treliving then re-clarified that, regarding potential changes, “Everything is on the table.”

Doing the count made two of the three key people in Maple Leafs’ leadership stress team unity and chemistry but (also) stating, “Everything is on the table.” The question is, how can the organization do both at the same time?

Treliving Changes the Way Things Worked on the Team

We agree with Treliving’s statement about the many changes the Maple Leafs have made in the past. During the Kyle Dubas era, the one consistent was that the team constantly changed. Over the past three seasons, the roster around the core five (the Core Four and adding Morgan Rielly) was a virtual revolving door of players. It was like the Maple Leafs were trying to find players whose importance was to make the core successful. If they could not do that, they were disposed of and replaced. 

After Treliving was hired, he worked on acquiring players who addressed what he felt was needed—players with more size and “snot.” One thing he did not do was make a ton of changes at the trade deadline. That went along with the idea of building team chemistry and unity. He was more willing to stick with the players who had gotten the Maple Leafs to the point they were at rather than bringing in “hired guns” to replace them. 

Treliving is working to change how the team talks about its players. In the new narrative, the talk concerns the team, not just the core players. The goal seems to be shifting the emphasis away from them. Now, the question is, how can they improve the roster of 23 players?

Considering the Phrase “Everything Is on the Table”

However, this new idea of “everything is on the table” exists. Does that jive with building team unity and chemistry? To answer that question, we must return to Pelley’s comment, “Great skill combined with chemistry and unity.” 

We don’t think there is any doubt this team has “great skill.” Matthews, Marner, Nylander, and Tavares are four of the most skilled players in the NHL. Rielly is one of the top offensively skilled defencemen in the league. (For those who might disagree about Rielly, check out the top ten scoring defencemen in the league for the last seven seasons.)

The question, then, is more about chemistry and unity. Do those five players have the chemistry and unity Pelley and Treliving discuss? We guess that question will be answered by management’s actions this offseason.

The Fundamental Incompatibility of Team Unity and Everything Is on the Table

One cannot help but notice a glaring contradiction in Maple Leafs management’s statements. On one hand, there’s a strong emphasis on fostering team unity and chemistry. CEO Pelley and GM Treliving highlighted that ethos. Yet, on the other hand, there’s an equally strong assertion that “everything is on the table.” The phrase suggests that fans should be ready for the impact of significant changes.

These two approaches appear fundamentally incompatible. While emphasizing unity implies a desire to build upon the existing foundation and strengthen the bonds within the team, the concept that “everything is on the table” suggests a willingness to dismantle that foundation.

As the Maple Leafs engage the offseason and contemplate their next steps, it begs the question: Can they follow both paths simultaneously? The answer remains debatable, but one thing is clear—until Maple Leafs management reconciles these conflicting narratives, the team’s direction might be clouded by confusion, ambiguity, and indecision.

[Note: I want to thank long-time Maple Leafs fan Stan Smith for collaborating with me on this post. Stan’s Facebook profile can be found here.]