In Toronto, as in most major sports markets, fans generally fall into three categories.
🏒 One-third are casual supporters. They cheer for the team when the games are on but pay little attention to what happens between games or during the off-season.
🏒 One-third are open-minded fans willing to give management and coaches a chance before forming an opinion on a new roster.
🏒 The final third are the knee-jerk reactionaries. They can usually be found on social media, loudly condemning every move made by management before a single game has even been played.
It’s that last group that has been working overtime lately.
The Maple Leafs’ new general manager, new head coach, and even their first trade have all been met with a torrent of criticism from people who appear determined to hate every decision before seeing the results. Most of these all-negative-all-the-time critics have invested little effort in researching the newcomers, nor are they willing to wait until the roster is fully assembled before declaring next season a catastrophe. Oddly enough, the harder they try to convince everyone they hate the team, the more obvious it becomes how deeply they care about it.
One of the more amusing criticisms is the claim that Jim Hiller is “a defensive coach.” As if that’s somehow a bad thing. More importantly, is it even true? Toronto Sun columnist Lance Hornby recently pointed out that Hiller arrives from a Los Angeles Kings team that led the NHL in goals against and ranked among the league’s best defensive clubs. That’s the part the critics seized upon.
What they conveniently ignored is that Hornby also noted the Kings finished third in the NHL in 5-on-5 goals-for percentage at 55.39 percent. Apparently, it is possible for a hockey team to defend well and generate offence at the same time. Who knew?
The criticism becomes even more difficult to understand when one remembers Hiller’s previous stint in Toronto from 2015 to 2019. During that period, he worked closely with the Leafs’ offensive stars and helped oversee a power play that opponents genuinely feared. The notion that he has suddenly become some sort of offence-suppressing hockey monk is difficult to take seriously. When asked about the system he intends to implement in Toronto, Hiller gave what was arguably the most encouraging answer possible. Rather than declaring allegiance to a rigid philosophy, he suggested the coaching staff will experiment with different approaches before settling on what best suits the players.
Imagine that. A coach adapting to his roster rather than demanding the roster adapt to him. What a radical concept.
Others have complained that Hiller isn’t a “sexy” hire or a big enough name. Some media members seemed equally disappointed. Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno summed up her reaction with a simple “meh.” But since when did name recognition become a meaningful hockey statistic? Maple Leaf fans have already lived through the high-profile eras of Paul Maurice, Ron Wilson, Randy Carlyle, Mike Babcock, and Craig Berube. How many Stanley Cup parades did those famous names produce while in Toronto?
Exactly.
Jim Hiller currently owns a winning percentage around the .600 mark as an NHL head coach. If he manages to duplicate that success in Toronto, his name will become famous soon enough.
The conspiracy theories don’t stop there.
Because Hiller enjoyed a strong relationship with Auston Matthews, William Nylander, and several other Leafs during his first stint with the organization, some have suggested he was hired primarily to appease the team’s star players.
Nonsense.
That said, what exactly is wrong with keeping your best players happy? The alternative would seem to be making them miserable. We’re not entirely sure how that strategy contributes to winning hockey games, but perhaps the online experts know something the rest of us don’t.
Speaking of facts rather than theories, new GM John Chayka has made it abundantly clear that he intends to reshape the Leafs’ identity. Brad Treliving attempted to build a larger, heavier team and, in the process, unintentionally assembled one of the slowest rosters in hockey. Berube’s system only amplified that problem by limiting the creativity of the club’s most gifted players.
Chayka appears determined to move in the opposite direction. His exhaustive coaching search was designed to find a coach whose vision aligned with the direction he and Mats Sundin want the franchise to pursue. The blueprint is straightforward: speed, puck movement, relentless pressure, and a commitment to attacking rather than surviving. Viewed through that lens, the acquisition of 5-foot-9 defenceman Emil Andrae makes perfect sense. So does the hiring of Jim Hiller.
This isn’t about coddling players. It’s about creating an environment where skilled players can maximize their strengths. The style Chayka appears to favour isn’t just effective; it’s also where the NHL has been heading for years. Anyone looking for evidence need only watch the Carolina Hurricanes. Fast hockey wins. It also happens to be entertaining. That helps explain why Hiller suggested his players will enjoy playing this way. After years of dump-and-chase hockey, the Leafs appear ready to embrace a more modern approach.
And while nobody within the organization will say this publicly, playing an exciting and successful brand of hockey doesn’t just help retain star players. It attracts them as well. Which brings us to the Connor McDavid conversation. No one knows what McDavid’s future holds, but it certainly doesn’t hurt when a franchise is building the exact type of environment elite players generally prefer.
One thing is already obvious. Maple Leafs ownership and John Chayka have decided they are no longer interested in following conventional wisdom simply because it’s conventional. What the media thinks is irrelevant. What social media thinks is irrelevant. The organization intends to make data-driven decisions based on what it believes will maximize its chances of winning. And history suggests that winning has a remarkable ability to silence critics.
Consider the complaints fans and media members have repeated for years.
The Leafs lacked cap space.
The Leafs lacked puck-moving defencemen.
The Leafs lacked team speed.
The Leafs lacked draft capital.
Then Chayka makes his first relatively modest trade. He moves out a goaltender the team couldn’t trust and a slow-moving defenceman whose preferred breakout pass involved firing the puck off the glass. In return, he acquires a young mobile player, an additional draft pick, and roughly $5 million in cap flexibility. Three needs addressed with one move. Yet much of the online crowd mocked the deal. Why? Because criticizing has become easier than thinking.
Will John Chayka succeed? Will Jim Hiller succeed? Nobody knows. But what we do know is that this management group isn’t afraid to “think outside the box.” Unlike the stagnant final years of the previous regime, the Chayka-Sundin-Hiller trio appears willing to take risks, pursue new ideas, and chart its own course.
Here’s a novel idea: Perhaps they should be judged once games are actually played. If things go badly, critics will undoubtedly remind everyone about the experienced coaches and general managers who were available.
You know, the famous ones.
The proven ones.
The ones with the impressive résumés.
To which one simple question should be asked:
Proven at what?
Being famous?
Or losing?
After all, why hire a coach who was recently fired for the first time in his career when you can hire one who’s already been fired half a dozen times?
And counting.
