“Why are you staying in a place where there is no future, and people believe you are part of the solution?”
Nick Kypreos asked this question in a recent episode Real Kyper & Bourne As he speculated on the possibility that Morgan Rielly would give up his mover clause. Like most of Kypreos’ comments, this is not a problem – it’s a provocation. A way to stir the pot and then use yourself as a sound of realism. It invites argument rather than reflection, and cleverly treats loyalty as stupid foolishness, often punishes those who buy it – contradictory kypreos rarely (if any) acknowledge.
Related: Maple Leaf has templates for creative expansion to keep Tavares
But what happens when we pause and take this issue seriously? If we can no longer judge the difference between a promise and a contract we are going to discard, what does it have to say about the state of the maple leaf and the city that follows them?
Morgan Rielly: The anchor point of the Toronto era
Rielly ranked fifth in 2012. He played over 800 games for the Maple Leafs, anchored the blue line in the chaos of the tank era and defined a decade on the second round ceiling of hope, disappointment and eternity. He was never the most gorgeous, nor the franchise face, but he was often conscience.
He appears, says the right thing, and quietly bears the load. He has supported a variety of communities with his fans over the past seasons and has thus made himself and his family a larger Toronto community. This is his home.
This spring, in the playoffs, as he did last playoff, he played the best hockey of his career. However, a few weeks later, fans and media figures wondered if he was part of the problem.
Toronto’s Criticism Culture
This is not a new thing. Toronto is a market where loyalty and longevity often become liabilities. Mitch Marner, a hometown star nominated for each match number and Selke, now seems to be a deal. Even the team’s greatest goal percentage, Auston Matthews will be questioned after every early exit.
If these players can’t escape scrutiny, what chance does Rielly have?
Related: What are the differences in maple leaves this season?
In Toronto, fans need more than just accountability – they usually need scapegoats. As Maple Leaf prepares for another reset, the knife turns to Rielly, who has five years left for his $7.5 million AAV contract, including totally no protection. The contract itself is not different from the reliable contracts made by today’s top four defenders in the NHL, and in five years it will be increasingly friendly.
(Photo by Kevin Sousa/nhli via Getty Image)
Kypreos speculates that if the change is inevitable, the team might want Rielly first. Why? He might get some value because his deals are manageable, especially for teams like the Vancouver Canucks near his hometown. The idea of Reilly returning to where he grew up is logical. But this may not be his home anymore. Toronto is.
Weight without moving clause
Teams and salary cap analysts often view no moving clauses as a barrier. But for players, this is a message of mutual trust. When Rielly re-signed in 2022, he didn’t get the highest dollar – he chose to be stable. He chose Toronto. So, what does the culture of Toronto say when the player we choose that choice is the kind of option that can be consumed?
Related: Toronto Maple Leaf: Revisiting Nazm Kadri Trade
Who in the organization is still considered part of the solution? Matthew Knies may-he’s still young, struggling to hit, and there’s no time to let anyone down. Chris Tanev and his gritty style will undoubtedly attract people. From William Nylander to Matthews to John Tavares, almost every core veteran is considered a problem. The promise here is conditional. It’s not safe until the next bad bounce.
What is the building of maple leaves?
So again, I was asked if a player who stayed should go. Maybe the real question isn’t about Rielly at all. Maybe it’s about us – fans, media, analysts and organizations. What kind of culture are we fostering when loyalty is interpreted as stagnation and clauses without moving are seen as errors? And, perhaps worse, maybe even worse, when a player who chooses not to give up the prohibition is marked as an infidelity?
If players like Rielly and Marner who have made in-depth investments in the organization are now seen as part of the problem, it is worth asking what kind of culture we are creating. If you stay, care and commitment will still leave you marked as part of the problem, then maybe it’s time to ask: What kind of solution are we even chasing?
