The Maple Leafs Miss Marner. What Does That Mean for His

I had an interesting conversation with another hockey writer last night. As we chatted back and forth, he said something that caught my attention. The Maple Leafs miss Mitch Marner.

I’ve written enough about Marner over the past nine seasons.

My first reaction was, Well, I'm not sure I want to go down that road again. I've written enough about Mitch Marner. Frankly, I keep wondering when it’s time to move on. But the point he made was clear, and a bit cautionary.

There's a difference between deciding that a player wasn't part of your team's legacy and discovering that replacing what he actually did is pretty difficult. And I think that's where Marner gets interesting again.

There’s no pretending that his Toronto years went exactly the way people hoped they would. Marner was part of an incredibly talented group that never managed to turn all that talent into the playoff success everyone expected. Eventually, he left.

But now Marner's gone, and the Maple Leafs have to replace him.

That's when you start to appreciate some of the things that perhaps became easy to take for granted. Marner could carry the puck through traffic. He could make a pass that other players didn't see. He could create offence when very little was happening. He could play big minutes.

You don't simply replace all of that because you decide it's time for a new chapter. But here's where I still come back to the question of legacy. I've been thinking about Wendel Clark lately, and that's what started this whole thing for me.

Wendel Clark doesn't compare statistically with Marner.

The numbers actually make the comparison pretty striking. Marner was far more productive statistically as a Maple Leaf, averaging 33.8 goals and 79.1 points per season compared with Clark's 20.9 goals and 37.4 points. Marner finished his nine Toronto seasons with 712 points, nearly twice Clark's 374.

And yet, when you think about their place in Toronto hockey history, the numbers don't tell the whole story. Clark's statistical production was nowhere near Marner's, but somehow he became Wendel Clark, and then became part of what it meant to be a Maple Leaf. That, I think, is the interesting part of the legacy question.

Clark wasn't simply a really good player who spent time in Toronto. He became part of the identity of the Maple Leafs. When people talk about Clark, they aren't just talking about goals and assists. They're talking about what it felt like to have Wendel Clark playing for the Maple Leafs. That's different.

The Maple Leafs will miss Mitch Marner, but differently.

Marner was clearly the more productive offensive player. He may ultimately have the better overall career. But I'm not sure he became part of Toronto's identity in the same way. A player doesn't have to be Wendel Clark to have been an important Maple Leaf.

Maybe the more honest way to look at Marner is this: the Maple Leafs may miss what Mitch Marner did without necessarily missing Mitch Marner in the way they miss some of the players who became part of the franchise's story. That's a subtle difference, but I think it's an important one.

Maybe the Leafs do miss Mitch Marner. Maybe we just didn't realize how much until he wasn't there anymore. But as for his legacy in Toronto? Even after an entire season away, I’m still not sure that's finished being argued about. And after all this time, maybe that's part of the legacy, too.