...in which I read basically a handful of columns by this guy and somehow think I've learned enough to educate you people on some legal issues.
Let's talk about just what the balls is going on right now, in the dramatic world of post-podium NHL/PA negotiations. A lot of people threw around the idea of decertification, then Gary Bettman said that wouldn't happen, then something kinda like it did happen, and then the NHL went to court. Let's sort it all out.
First of all, decertification, which is not a thing that happened, is when the membership of a union votes to revoke that union's right to represent them. If that vote passes, it is brought to the National Labor Relations Board (you'll hear more about the NLRB later), which then officially dissolves that union as a negotiating body. So, if the NHLPA were decertified, it would no longer have the right to negotiate deals (such as the CBA) for the players, and the players would no longer be unionized. More on the consequences of that shortly.
A disclaimer of interest, which is what might actually happen, is when the union itself decides to stop representing its members. This is apparently much simpler than decertification, as it requires neither a membership vote nor the involvement of the NLRB - the union leadership basically just has to say "we don't represent these guys anymore." Again, the result is that the players are no longer unionized; it's just a different (and much easier and faster) path to getting there.
Understand: so far, the players have not begun a vote to decertify, and the NHLPA itself has not disclaimed interest. Last week, the NHLPA agreed to have the players vote as to whether or not to authorize the PA to disclaim interest. That's what happened: a step on the way to a disclaimer of interest. Now, starting yesterday, and until Thursday, the players will vote on this authorization. If it passes (and it is expected to pass), then the NHLPA will consider a disclaimer of interest. Remember that it's a disclaimer of interest, not decertification, so it's up to the union itself, not its membership, to officially do it. While we can expect the union to likely disclaim interest once the vote passes, it's important to note that the vote passing will not immediately mean that the union is dissolved.
So, let's say that Thursday comes, the players agree to authorize the NHLPA to disclaim interest, and then the PA does so. Then, the NHLPA would be dissolved, and the players would no longer be unionized. How does this actually give the players leverage (the "take my toys and go home" tactic notwithstanding)? Well, basically, if there's no players' union, there's no body to agree to things like a CBA, and, consequently, to agree to things like salary caps and contract restrictions - all of which would be profoundly illegal if they hadn't been collectively bargained and agreed upon by the union. Think about it: if the top 30 employers in your particular field, whatever it is you do, all got together and agreed that none of them would ever pay anyone with a particular job more than a certain amount of money, you'd probably think that violates some sort of anti-trust laws, yeah? Well, it would in this case, too.
And if there's no union collectively representing them, the individual players now become free to take the NHL to court for things like that. And hey - you know what else might be considered illegal in the absence of a labor negotiation? Those 30 employers collectively agreeing not to, say, lock out everyone with a particular job. Which is really the primary unspoken next-step threat here: if the players end up deunionizing (which cannot possibly be a word), they then individually (or as a class action, I guess) take the NHL to court to try to get the lockout declared illegal.
Which is not to say they would succeed. In the absence of a union, the lockout isn't necessarily illegal, but it isn't necessarily legal, either. But challenging the legality of the lockout is not a fight the NHL wants to have to deal with in any case.
Which brings us to the NHL's legal action. In response to the disclaimer of interest authorization vote that's going on right now, the NHL has decided to preemptively go to court. If I understand that it's likely that, after a disclaimer of interest, the players' next move will be to take the NHL to court over the lockout, then certainly the NHL understands that as well. So the NHL has already gone to court, to ask for a court declaration of the legality of the current lockout.
Why is it better for the NHL to take this action than to wait for the NHLPA to take action? Well, in large part, because of where the request was made. US courts are divided into geographical circuits, and different circuits, of course, are made up of different judges and may be likely to rule in different ways. The NHL filed for this declaration in New York, in the Second Circuit, which is known to be a little bit more league-friendly. Had they waited for the NHLPA to file a suit against them, they likely would have filed it in California, part of the more labor-friendly Ninth Circuit. Of course, this doesn't stop the PA from filing a suit in the Ninth Circuit, but it does mean that the first court to start to look at this will be the Second Circuit, which is good for the NHL.
Which actually brings us back to the whole decertification/disclaimer of interest thing. Part of the NHL's argument for the lockout's legality is that any disclaimer of interest filed by the NHLPA would very obviously be a negotiation tactic and not a meaningful dissolution. That argument would have been harder to make after a decertification, since that's a more in-depth process that requires a vote and involves the NLRB. It might be an easier argument to make after a disclaimer of interest, albeit one that also involved a player vote.
But wait! There's more! In addition to asking the courts for a declaration of the lockout's legality, the NHL also asked them for a ruling that, should the NHLPA dissolve, then all player contracts be rendered void. Let that sucker soak in for a minute. The argument goes like this: all player contracts were negotiated according to a very specific set of rules laid out in a collective bargaining agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA. If no NHLPA means no CBA, as discussed above, then shouldn't it also mean that the player contracts described by the CBA (which literally contains within it the "Standard Player Contract" on which all player contracts are based) are also void?
It's not as easy a sell as "the lockout is legal," but if they got it, it'd could be as huge a blow for them as getting the lockout declared illegal would be a blow against them.
Finally, on top of the 2-pronged lawsuit the NHL filed, the league also went to the NLRB (remember how I said you'd hear more about them? I never lie to you) and filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge against the NHLPA, for what they consider "bad faith bargaining." The NHL is claiming that the NHLPA is threatening a disclaimer of interest without any real desire to dissolve the union, as a negotiation tactic. This could be considered by the NLRB to be an attempt to circumvent the actual collective bargaining process, which would be an illegal negotiation tactic. It's hard to say how the NLRB would come down here, but at the very least, the argument that the NHLPA is using this as a bargaining chip and has no real desire to dissolve is probably a pretty solid one.
Here's the good news (well, the not-as-bad news): there is precedent for this crazy legal cold war to still result in a season. Last season's NBA lockout (remember how nice it was when, not only was there hockey, but as a bonus, there also wasn't basketball?) saw a very similar series of events. All the way back on August 2, the NBA filed in New York to declare its brand new lockout legal, and they filed a complaint with the NLRB, declaring the NBPA uncooperative because the NBPA was threatening to dissolve its union. Then, on November 14, the NBPA actually did disclaim interest, thus dissolving, and sure enough, the next day, individual players filed antitrust suits against the NBA (in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits). Well, the thing is, 11 days later, the NBA and players came up with an agreement; 5 days after that, the NBPA re-formed; and a week after that, the new agreement was officially signed by the NBA and NBPA.
So, the point is: even going through exactly these same apocalyptic-looking steps, the NBA nonetheless settled and found a way to play a season. So there's precedent. But then, no other league really seems to have the same history of obvious animosity that the NHL does, does it? Regardless, we are where we are: the NHL has filed a suit to declare the lockout legal and to declare player contracts void if the NHLPA dissolves; the NHL has filed a complaint with the NLRB to declare that the NHLPA is illegally negotiating in bad faith; and the NHLPA's membership is in the middle of voting to authorize its leadership to file a disclaimer of interest.
And as of exactly one year ago, the NBA had played 4 preseason games.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Operation: Hat Trick
Last week, I did something that I expect I will remember for a long time. Everyone else has already written about it by now, but I have a day job and also I'm busy, so I'm writing about it now. Pick your favorite "Deal With It" meme and just imagine I put it here.
I find it hard to believe that you don't know what Operation: Hat Trick was, but just in case: Brad Richards and Scott Hartnell organized a charity game in Atlantic City, to benefit the Empire State Relief Fund and the New Jersey State Relief Fund, and they invited all their friends. And it turns out that they, and all their friends, are very good at hockey (rosters here), so a lot of people came and watched.
So 10,000 hockey fans descended on Atlantic City for what was Broadway Hall's first sellout game since 1933. Mostly Flyer fans, with a whole lot of Ranger fans - the makeup was pretty similar to the Winter Classic last season (was that only last season?). The atmosphere was all about hockey - this was a group of people whose home states had been totally ravaged by this storm, but it was immediately clear that these people were all here because their NHL season was gone. I chose not to wear a jersey, as I have been refusing to wear any NHL or team gear since the lockout began, but most attendees were in some kind of team apparel.
From the moment the doors opened, it was clear that everyone just wanted to be a hockey fan again. I've been to some pretty big hockey games before, but I've never been to one where the crowd outside roared like this when they saw the arena doors open. It was a night that united all fans in our desire to bring hockey back. But what struck me most was that it united us like hockey fans. It was this bizarre feeling whereby Flyer fans were screaming "Let's Go Flyers" and booing Brad Richards, and Ranger fans were shouting "Henrik" and calling Jody Shelley a bum, but -- it's hard to describe -- it felt like we were all rooting for the same team while we were doing it. It was like, "Hey NHL, look how badly we want to call each other assholes again; why won't you let us?"
As for the game itself, it was pretty much what you'd expect: the skaters all played like it was a charity game, Lundqvist was in mid-season form, and Brodeur outpaced Bernie Parent's performance in the Winter Classic Alumni Game. Top 3 chants by popularity: (1) "We want hockey" (2) "Fire Bettman" (3) "Maaaaartyyyyyy!" Honorable mention: "Crosby sucks" (he was neither in the building nor mentioned previously; some Flyer fans just wanted to make sure everyone remembered).
Old man goalie-bashing notwithstanding, it was a pretty great environment for everyone. Fans behind the benches were throwing stuff and markers over the boards, and players were signing and throwing them back. After the first period, a guy near me yelled at Kerry Fraser (did I mention that Kerry Fraser officiated this game?) "Hey Kerry, nice hair!" and Fraser turned around and gave us an Arthur Fonzarelli hair-touch-and-thumbs-up.
And the thing is: the players were having that much fun, too. It felt a little like the All-Star Game (in level of talent, as well). At some point in the third period, Bobby Ryan took a completely unreasonable dive to try to get at a puck that was way out of his reach, and when he found himself on the ice, he started using his stick to "kayak" his way to the boards. A few minutes later, Brian Boyle came in on Brodeur all alone in the slot, and his shot was saved high into the netting. Boyle circled with a grin on his face and put 2 arms in the air to indicate that his Field Goal kick was good (Canadian readers, that is an American football joke - don't worry about it). The players never stopped grinning the whole time.
And that's really the takeaway - for one night, the players and fans were able to come together and enjoy doing what they're supposed to do. It was clear that everyone involved in the event had a ball, and everyone just wanted to be able to continue doing their thing. Steven Stamkos wants a third chance at a breakaway on Lundqvist. Fans want to continue to tell Marty Brodeur how much he sucks. It was a night wherein, despite lockouts and weather, everyone was united in the only way we know how to be. We want hockey.
I find it hard to believe that you don't know what Operation: Hat Trick was, but just in case: Brad Richards and Scott Hartnell organized a charity game in Atlantic City, to benefit the Empire State Relief Fund and the New Jersey State Relief Fund, and they invited all their friends. And it turns out that they, and all their friends, are very good at hockey (rosters here), so a lot of people came and watched.
So 10,000 hockey fans descended on Atlantic City for what was Broadway Hall's first sellout game since 1933. Mostly Flyer fans, with a whole lot of Ranger fans - the makeup was pretty similar to the Winter Classic last season (was that only last season?). The atmosphere was all about hockey - this was a group of people whose home states had been totally ravaged by this storm, but it was immediately clear that these people were all here because their NHL season was gone. I chose not to wear a jersey, as I have been refusing to wear any NHL or team gear since the lockout began, but most attendees were in some kind of team apparel.
From the moment the doors opened, it was clear that everyone just wanted to be a hockey fan again. I've been to some pretty big hockey games before, but I've never been to one where the crowd outside roared like this when they saw the arena doors open. It was a night that united all fans in our desire to bring hockey back. But what struck me most was that it united us like hockey fans. It was this bizarre feeling whereby Flyer fans were screaming "Let's Go Flyers" and booing Brad Richards, and Ranger fans were shouting "Henrik" and calling Jody Shelley a bum, but -- it's hard to describe -- it felt like we were all rooting for the same team while we were doing it. It was like, "Hey NHL, look how badly we want to call each other assholes again; why won't you let us?"
As for the game itself, it was pretty much what you'd expect: the skaters all played like it was a charity game, Lundqvist was in mid-season form, and Brodeur outpaced Bernie Parent's performance in the Winter Classic Alumni Game. Top 3 chants by popularity: (1) "We want hockey" (2) "Fire Bettman" (3) "Maaaaartyyyyyy!" Honorable mention: "Crosby sucks" (he was neither in the building nor mentioned previously; some Flyer fans just wanted to make sure everyone remembered).
Old man goalie-bashing notwithstanding, it was a pretty great environment for everyone. Fans behind the benches were throwing stuff and markers over the boards, and players were signing and throwing them back. After the first period, a guy near me yelled at Kerry Fraser (did I mention that Kerry Fraser officiated this game?) "Hey Kerry, nice hair!" and Fraser turned around and gave us an Arthur Fonzarelli hair-touch-and-thumbs-up.
And the thing is: the players were having that much fun, too. It felt a little like the All-Star Game (in level of talent, as well). At some point in the third period, Bobby Ryan took a completely unreasonable dive to try to get at a puck that was way out of his reach, and when he found himself on the ice, he started using his stick to "kayak" his way to the boards. A few minutes later, Brian Boyle came in on Brodeur all alone in the slot, and his shot was saved high into the netting. Boyle circled with a grin on his face and put 2 arms in the air to indicate that his Field Goal kick was good (Canadian readers, that is an American football joke - don't worry about it). The players never stopped grinning the whole time.
And that's really the takeaway - for one night, the players and fans were able to come together and enjoy doing what they're supposed to do. It was clear that everyone involved in the event had a ball, and everyone just wanted to be able to continue doing their thing. Steven Stamkos wants a third chance at a breakaway on Lundqvist. Fans want to continue to tell Marty Brodeur how much he sucks. It was a night wherein, despite lockouts and weather, everyone was united in the only way we know how to be. We want hockey.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Hope, forward progess, and a financial plan we can believe in
Well this is exciting, isn't it? The NHL has put a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue on the table, which is a super-reasonable offer, and is generally considered where the two sides will eventually end up. The proposal, apparently, also offers no rollbacks, which is a huge sticking point for the PA - whatever regulations new contracts have to deal with, they don't want already-signed deals to be affected. This is huge news, I believe, as it represents a significant step forward from the "chasm" that previously stood between the NHL and the NHLPA.
It's not all good news, of course. As I do with the Romney-Ryan tax plan, I have some basic arithmetical questions here. If the players are going to make all the money they've been promised, how is it going to drop from 57% to 50% of HRR? Will they raise total hockey-related revenue by 14%? Not likely, given the goodwill they're burning day by day. It's widely believed that the proposal includes some sort of escrow agreement, which would be a pretty big sticking point. But, of course, details on that aren't out yet. They could be disastrous enough that the PA is not interested.
Or, of course, Donald Fehr could see this as a sign of weakness and pounce, by submitting a counter-proposal that splits the difference between the proposed 50/50 split and the 57% the NHLPA currently takes in. The negotiations started so far away, and Bettman and Fehr are both ruthless enough negotiators, that the NHLPA definitely has the opportunity to squander this and make as unreasonable a counter-offer to this as the NHL first made to them a few months ago.
Oh, and did I mention the offer has a November 2 season start deadline? The NHL takes this offer off the table if they can't get it signed in time to start the regular season on November 2, which is in 2 weeks and 3 days. If you figure training camp has to happen, like, at all, that doesn't give the PA much time. In fact, Bettman said that the PA has a 10-day window, starting now. Which is kinda shitty, for negotiation reasons, but also kinda good, because it means we might have hockey ever.
At any rate, the NHL has tendered what seems on the surface to be a reasonable offer. Which means we're that much closer to a deal than we were yesterday. If negotiations move quickly enough, a full 82-game season isn't even off the table. Your move, PA.
It's not all good news, of course. As I do with the Romney-Ryan tax plan, I have some basic arithmetical questions here. If the players are going to make all the money they've been promised, how is it going to drop from 57% to 50% of HRR? Will they raise total hockey-related revenue by 14%? Not likely, given the goodwill they're burning day by day. It's widely believed that the proposal includes some sort of escrow agreement, which would be a pretty big sticking point. But, of course, details on that aren't out yet. They could be disastrous enough that the PA is not interested.
Or, of course, Donald Fehr could see this as a sign of weakness and pounce, by submitting a counter-proposal that splits the difference between the proposed 50/50 split and the 57% the NHLPA currently takes in. The negotiations started so far away, and Bettman and Fehr are both ruthless enough negotiators, that the NHLPA definitely has the opportunity to squander this and make as unreasonable a counter-offer to this as the NHL first made to them a few months ago.
Oh, and did I mention the offer has a November 2 season start deadline? The NHL takes this offer off the table if they can't get it signed in time to start the regular season on November 2, which is in 2 weeks and 3 days. If you figure training camp has to happen, like, at all, that doesn't give the PA much time. In fact, Bettman said that the PA has a 10-day window, starting now. Which is kinda shitty, for negotiation reasons, but also kinda good, because it means we might have hockey ever.
At any rate, the NHL has tendered what seems on the surface to be a reasonable offer. Which means we're that much closer to a deal than we were yesterday. If negotiations move quickly enough, a full 82-game season isn't even off the table. Your move, PA.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Argument to Moderation
OK, so, look. It's September 14, and I have posted to this blog twice since July 5. This is not to make one of those old-school blog apologies-for-lack-of-posts; it's to say that it happened because I've been bitterly avoiding all things hockey as this lockout bullshit has been looming. I haven't even played Blades of Steel all summer. I'm trying to get into football, but I just can't care as much. It doesn't work. So, fuck it, let's talk about this impending lockout.
A lot of writeups I'm seeing say things like "both sides are refusing to compromise" and "oh, it's just a bunch of millionaires fighting over money, therefore it is stupid." Yes, technically, that is the situation. But stating it like that strongly implies equal blame, which is not appropriate at all.
WELCOME TO YOUR HISTORY LESSON. SIT A SPELL. YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.
In 1994, immediately after a major metropolitan market (no prize for guessing which) won the Cup for the first time in a long time, playing a conference final that was probably one of the greatest playoff series in NHL history, the NHL entered its second-ever work stoppage (the first was a 10-day strike by the NHLPA; no games were lost). Commissioner Gary Bettman, then on the job for just over a year, wanted to institute a salary cap, which the players obviously opposed. After playing 1993-94 without a collective bargaining agreement, Bettman led the NHL to it's first game-cancelling work stoppage, a lockout of the players that lasted for half of the regular season.
Eventually, the big-market teams (including the Rangers) gave up on the salary cap idea, rightly feeling like not having any hockey at all was starting to be bad for business, and a collective bargaining agreement was signed in time for the 1995 season to start and for the New Jersey Devils to win their first half of a Stanley Cup. The CBA was set to last for a minimum of 6 years, and would be the agreement each season after that until either party chose to terminate it, which the NHL (again, not the NHLPA) did after 4 more seasons, still under Bettman, in 2004.
Again, the NHL was looking for a hard salary cap, and again, Commissioner Gary Bettman, now on the job for just over a decade, led the NHL to a game-cancelling work-stoppage, a lockout of the players. This time, the NHL was much bolder, rejecting an early offer by the NHLPA to take an overall 24% salary cut and make other concessions in order to avoid the cap. But the NHL stood firm in its resolve, and the lockout dragged on, until in February, Gary Bettman admitted the cancellation of the entire season, making 2004-05 the second year the Stanley Cup would not be awarded. The other was 1918-19, due to the Spanish flu epidemic.
The negotiations this time around were pretty simple: the NHL didn't budge, and the players caved on basically every issue, because the alternative seemed to be no longer playing NHL hockey. The NHL even threatened to use replacement players for 2005-06, filing an official charge against an NHLPA policy against scabs. By the time a new CBA was agreed upon, the NHL had their hard salary cap, and the players still took the overall 24% salary cut.
When the deal was finally announced, in July, Ron MacLean said, "A lot of people say that in this type of situation, nobody wins. But that's never true... It's about control and the owners got what they wanted: control." Bobby Hull said of the players, "I'm not so sure they got proper guidance from the guy running the Players' Association... You can't fight fire with fire when the flame on the other side is a heck of a lot hotter and a heck of a lot bigger." Don Cherry just said "No doubt who won this contest."
Meanwhile, the players' excitement over returning to the game was... tepid. The most positive reactions I could find were from Craig Conroy ("When you really sit down and look at it, the nuts and bolts, it's not as bad as we thought") and Mike Fisher ("It's the best deal we're going to get now"). Sean Burke said of the deal, "I just think we've been worn down to the point where at this stage, the deal would have to be incredibly bad for the guys not to vote it in." Jeremy Roenick went a step farther: "To be totally honest, I really don't care what the deal is anymore. All I care about is getting the game back on the ice."
Gary Bettman said, "Let's drop the puck on a fresh start and a wonderful future for the National Hockey League."
See, the NHL fully had the NHLPA by the short ones (balls). They showed that they were willing to cancel hockey indefinitely to get the deal they wanted. What could the NHLPA do?
Understand: I fully support the salary cap. I think it is necessary to make a sport reasonably competitive, and I reject the notion that a league should simply let its teams operate under the free market and see what happens. A league's job is to level the playing field so that individual games are entertaining. I've written a lot here about my dislike of the NHL's march toward parity because it alters the game itself. I support rules that make team construction level - that's the only way we can have a reasonably competitive product.
I didn't tell you this story to complain about the cap. I told you this story to complain about how we got it. Yes, I think the NHL is better off now than it was in the Devils-led dark ages from 1995 through 2004. But we see that we got here thanks to an uncompromisingly ideological league whose commissioner has no qualms about indefinitely suspending it if he thinks the ends justify it.
Anyway, your history lesson is over now. We'll move on to today in a bit, but go ahead and take a 5-minute water break. Leave your notebooks out.
Good. So. The CBA signed in 2005 was set to expire in 2011, with the NHLPA granted the right to extend it for one whole year if they wanted to. Once again, despite the huge hits they took in negotiating it, the NHLPA chose to continue playing under the it. And once again, immediately following a major metropolitan market (no prize for guessing which) winning its first Stanley Cup ever, the CBA is expiring, and no new one is in place.
Despite record profits for the NHL, Bettman, now on the job for just shy of two decades, once again came to the table asking for a 24% cut in overall player salaries - from 57% of overall hockey-related revenue to 43%. And to show that he knows just how extreme this proposal is, Bettman threatened a lockout as early as a month ago, as if to say "remember what happened last time?"
In 2004, the NHL felt that the league was badly in need of a salary cap, to make things more fair. Whether or not you agree, you can at least see that the NHL was trying to fix something. This time, Gary Bettman has given us a surprisingly candid reason for these labor talks: "The fact is, we believe that 57 percent of [hockey-related revenue] is too much. Even a brief lockout will cost more in terms of lost salary and wages than what we're proposing to do to make a deal that we think we need to make."
"If we lock you out, it will cost you even more than we're trying to take away from you"? That is a threat. If you understand nothing else about this off-season, understand this: the lockout is entirely a tool used by the league to bully the players into giving them what they want. The NHLPA has offered to play another season under the current CBA, exactly as it stands - the one the NHL bullied the PA into just 7 years ago - while negotiations continue. The NHL rejected this offer. Why? Because a lockout has been part of their negotiation tactics all along.
Which brings us to today's phrase of the day: argument to moderation. Argument to moderation, or the grey fallacy, is the logical fallacy whereby if there are two perspectives on an issue, we are inclined to believe that the "true" answer lies somewhere between them, in some kind of compromise. But that is just not always the case. If I propose that we murder your parents, and you propose that we do not, then we are not equally to blame for the disagreement, and the correct solution is not to murder exactly one of your parents.
You see this all the time in political media. Some group claims that the President of the United States is going to round up senior citizens and put them to death if they're old or weak enough, someone other group states that this is obviously not the case, and the media, in an attempt to remain "unbiased," gives equal air time to a person from each group, refusing to weigh in either way. Sometimes it's okay to show some "bias" toward the reasonable thing.
So forgive me if I'm sick of reading coverage about how Donald Fehr and Gary Bettman are both millionaires and shouldn't be fighting like this over money, while Bettman continues to collect his million-dollar salary and Fehr won't see a dime until a new CBA is in place. Forgive me if I think "the players should stop whining over money because they're so rich" is a juvenile, simplistic, uninformed reaction. Yes, technically, either the NHLPA or the NHL could just accept the other's terms and start the season, but that doesn't mean they're both to blame for the problem.
Tomorrow night at midnight, the 95-year-old National Hockey League will enter its third lockout, and the third lockout of Gary Bettman's 19-year tenure as league commissioner. Fans will be understandably hurt and bitter about it. Many will depart. The league will suffer a hit in popularity. We pathetic die-hard fans will watch college hockey for a few months and then return no matter what, and casual fans will give up and go watch football, possibly forever. None of this is news.
Let's just all make sure we know who's at fault here. Blaming both sides for a conflict that one of them is entirely responsible for creating and maintaining is irresponsible.
Oh. And if I were hired to run a 75-year-old business, and within a year I'd shut down the business entirely for the first time ever, and then within a couple of decades I'd shut it down two more times, there's a pretty good chance I'd be fired.
A lot of writeups I'm seeing say things like "both sides are refusing to compromise" and "oh, it's just a bunch of millionaires fighting over money, therefore it is stupid." Yes, technically, that is the situation. But stating it like that strongly implies equal blame, which is not appropriate at all.
WELCOME TO YOUR HISTORY LESSON. SIT A SPELL. YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.
In 1994, immediately after a major metropolitan market (no prize for guessing which) won the Cup for the first time in a long time, playing a conference final that was probably one of the greatest playoff series in NHL history, the NHL entered its second-ever work stoppage (the first was a 10-day strike by the NHLPA; no games were lost). Commissioner Gary Bettman, then on the job for just over a year, wanted to institute a salary cap, which the players obviously opposed. After playing 1993-94 without a collective bargaining agreement, Bettman led the NHL to it's first game-cancelling work stoppage, a lockout of the players that lasted for half of the regular season.
Eventually, the big-market teams (including the Rangers) gave up on the salary cap idea, rightly feeling like not having any hockey at all was starting to be bad for business, and a collective bargaining agreement was signed in time for the 1995 season to start and for the New Jersey Devils to win their first half of a Stanley Cup. The CBA was set to last for a minimum of 6 years, and would be the agreement each season after that until either party chose to terminate it, which the NHL (again, not the NHLPA) did after 4 more seasons, still under Bettman, in 2004.
Again, the NHL was looking for a hard salary cap, and again, Commissioner Gary Bettman, now on the job for just over a decade, led the NHL to a game-cancelling work-stoppage, a lockout of the players. This time, the NHL was much bolder, rejecting an early offer by the NHLPA to take an overall 24% salary cut and make other concessions in order to avoid the cap. But the NHL stood firm in its resolve, and the lockout dragged on, until in February, Gary Bettman admitted the cancellation of the entire season, making 2004-05 the second year the Stanley Cup would not be awarded. The other was 1918-19, due to the Spanish flu epidemic.
The negotiations this time around were pretty simple: the NHL didn't budge, and the players caved on basically every issue, because the alternative seemed to be no longer playing NHL hockey. The NHL even threatened to use replacement players for 2005-06, filing an official charge against an NHLPA policy against scabs. By the time a new CBA was agreed upon, the NHL had their hard salary cap, and the players still took the overall 24% salary cut.
When the deal was finally announced, in July, Ron MacLean said, "A lot of people say that in this type of situation, nobody wins. But that's never true... It's about control and the owners got what they wanted: control." Bobby Hull said of the players, "I'm not so sure they got proper guidance from the guy running the Players' Association... You can't fight fire with fire when the flame on the other side is a heck of a lot hotter and a heck of a lot bigger." Don Cherry just said "No doubt who won this contest."
Meanwhile, the players' excitement over returning to the game was... tepid. The most positive reactions I could find were from Craig Conroy ("When you really sit down and look at it, the nuts and bolts, it's not as bad as we thought") and Mike Fisher ("It's the best deal we're going to get now"). Sean Burke said of the deal, "I just think we've been worn down to the point where at this stage, the deal would have to be incredibly bad for the guys not to vote it in." Jeremy Roenick went a step farther: "To be totally honest, I really don't care what the deal is anymore. All I care about is getting the game back on the ice."
Gary Bettman said, "Let's drop the puck on a fresh start and a wonderful future for the National Hockey League."
See, the NHL fully had the NHLPA by the short ones (balls). They showed that they were willing to cancel hockey indefinitely to get the deal they wanted. What could the NHLPA do?
Understand: I fully support the salary cap. I think it is necessary to make a sport reasonably competitive, and I reject the notion that a league should simply let its teams operate under the free market and see what happens. A league's job is to level the playing field so that individual games are entertaining. I've written a lot here about my dislike of the NHL's march toward parity because it alters the game itself. I support rules that make team construction level - that's the only way we can have a reasonably competitive product.
I didn't tell you this story to complain about the cap. I told you this story to complain about how we got it. Yes, I think the NHL is better off now than it was in the Devils-led dark ages from 1995 through 2004. But we see that we got here thanks to an uncompromisingly ideological league whose commissioner has no qualms about indefinitely suspending it if he thinks the ends justify it.
Anyway, your history lesson is over now. We'll move on to today in a bit, but go ahead and take a 5-minute water break. Leave your notebooks out.
Good. So. The CBA signed in 2005 was set to expire in 2011, with the NHLPA granted the right to extend it for one whole year if they wanted to. Once again, despite the huge hits they took in negotiating it, the NHLPA chose to continue playing under the it. And once again, immediately following a major metropolitan market (no prize for guessing which) winning its first Stanley Cup ever, the CBA is expiring, and no new one is in place.
Despite record profits for the NHL, Bettman, now on the job for just shy of two decades, once again came to the table asking for a 24% cut in overall player salaries - from 57% of overall hockey-related revenue to 43%. And to show that he knows just how extreme this proposal is, Bettman threatened a lockout as early as a month ago, as if to say "remember what happened last time?"
In 2004, the NHL felt that the league was badly in need of a salary cap, to make things more fair. Whether or not you agree, you can at least see that the NHL was trying to fix something. This time, Gary Bettman has given us a surprisingly candid reason for these labor talks: "The fact is, we believe that 57 percent of [hockey-related revenue] is too much. Even a brief lockout will cost more in terms of lost salary and wages than what we're proposing to do to make a deal that we think we need to make."
"If we lock you out, it will cost you even more than we're trying to take away from you"? That is a threat. If you understand nothing else about this off-season, understand this: the lockout is entirely a tool used by the league to bully the players into giving them what they want. The NHLPA has offered to play another season under the current CBA, exactly as it stands - the one the NHL bullied the PA into just 7 years ago - while negotiations continue. The NHL rejected this offer. Why? Because a lockout has been part of their negotiation tactics all along.
Which brings us to today's phrase of the day: argument to moderation. Argument to moderation, or the grey fallacy, is the logical fallacy whereby if there are two perspectives on an issue, we are inclined to believe that the "true" answer lies somewhere between them, in some kind of compromise. But that is just not always the case. If I propose that we murder your parents, and you propose that we do not, then we are not equally to blame for the disagreement, and the correct solution is not to murder exactly one of your parents.
You see this all the time in political media. Some group claims that the President of the United States is going to round up senior citizens and put them to death if they're old or weak enough, someone other group states that this is obviously not the case, and the media, in an attempt to remain "unbiased," gives equal air time to a person from each group, refusing to weigh in either way. Sometimes it's okay to show some "bias" toward the reasonable thing.
So forgive me if I'm sick of reading coverage about how Donald Fehr and Gary Bettman are both millionaires and shouldn't be fighting like this over money, while Bettman continues to collect his million-dollar salary and Fehr won't see a dime until a new CBA is in place. Forgive me if I think "the players should stop whining over money because they're so rich" is a juvenile, simplistic, uninformed reaction. Yes, technically, either the NHLPA or the NHL could just accept the other's terms and start the season, but that doesn't mean they're both to blame for the problem.
Tomorrow night at midnight, the 95-year-old National Hockey League will enter its third lockout, and the third lockout of Gary Bettman's 19-year tenure as league commissioner. Fans will be understandably hurt and bitter about it. Many will depart. The league will suffer a hit in popularity. We pathetic die-hard fans will watch college hockey for a few months and then return no matter what, and casual fans will give up and go watch football, possibly forever. None of this is news.
Let's just all make sure we know who's at fault here. Blaming both sides for a conflict that one of them is entirely responsible for creating and maintaining is irresponsible.
Oh. And if I were hired to run a 75-year-old business, and within a year I'd shut down the business entirely for the first time ever, and then within a couple of decades I'd shut it down two more times, there's a pretty good chance I'd be fired.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Rick Nash!
Welcome to New York, Rick Nash! We trust that unlike Shea Weber, you'll enjoy living in the city.
Though the official trade call hasn't been made to the league yet, all sources seem to point to the trade being Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, and a 1st-rounder to Columbus, in exchange for Rick Nash, some yet-unnamed AHL defenseman, and a conditional 3rd-rounder. Let's be clear: this trade is a steal for the Rangers, on all fronts.
NHL-ready value: Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anisimov vs. Rick Nash. Clearly, this is where the Rangers win big; there's not a lot of cause to explain this. Player-for-player, you'd rather have a Nash than a Dubi and an Anisimov. Sad to see those guys go, as neither is bad at all, but come on.
Prospects: Of course, this is where Columbus makes up a little ground. But as it turns out, it's not much. We swap a 1st-rounder for a 3rd-rounder, which is of course giving the edge to the Blue Jackets, but we're discussing completely unknown players; neither of those picks is gonna be a top-5 overall. And we swap Tim Erixon for a defensive AHL-er named Steve Delisle, who probably isn't as good as Tim Erixon. Erixon probably has a decent upside, but it's all unproven. You'll never hear me complain about giving up someone who has the potential to be great for someone who is already very good.
Incidentally, the condition on the 3rd-rounder is that we give it back if we make it to the Cup Finals. If Nash pushes us to the Cup Finals, do you think anyone's gonna be complaining about a lost pick?
Price: Cry cry cry, Rick Nash costs a cap hit of $7.8 million, blah blah blah. Check out what happens when you use a little math before you complain about math, though. Dubinsky's cap hit is $4.2 million. Anisimov's is $1.875 million. Erixon's is $1.75 million. Mr. Calculator just called and told me that adds up to $7.825 million. So, assuming Erixon plays in the league next season either way, the Rangers actually save money under the cap next year.
(And Nash is only 34 when this contract ends - we're not exactly talking Brad Richards-length, here. At 28, Nash is in his prime, not on his way out of it.)
So I'm just not interested in hearing Ranger fans complain because they think every contract given to anyone over the age of 25 is Scott Gomez.
All in all, the Rangers' third and fourth lines got worse this off-season, and their first and second lines got better. I'm sad to see all those great character middle-of-the-pack guys go (Dubinsky, Mitchell, Prust, Fedotenko, Anisimov). But let's look at who's left, even assuming the Rangers make no further moves (sorry that I've flipped some wingers, it made organization easy):
Gaborik - Richards - Nash
Hagelin - Stepan - Callahan
Pyatt - Boyle - Kreider
Rupp - Halpern - Asham
All of last season, we talked about how the Rangers were a team full of 2nd- and 3rd-liners, and about how the coach didn't trust his bottom 6 enough. We all assumed the solution was that he had to learn to coach differently. Maybe instead, the solution was to give him a team that suits him better. When I look at this lineup, I'm inclined to give ice time the way Torts does, too. Maybe this is the team Torts needs, to take them to the next level.
And now, imagine if the Rangers can still land Shane Doan (there's plenty of cap space, by the way). This could be a lot worse, is all I'm saying.
The only problem now is that there's gonna be a work stoppage, and we won't actually get any hockey.
Though the official trade call hasn't been made to the league yet, all sources seem to point to the trade being Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, and a 1st-rounder to Columbus, in exchange for Rick Nash, some yet-unnamed AHL defenseman, and a conditional 3rd-rounder. Let's be clear: this trade is a steal for the Rangers, on all fronts.
NHL-ready value: Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anisimov vs. Rick Nash. Clearly, this is where the Rangers win big; there's not a lot of cause to explain this. Player-for-player, you'd rather have a Nash than a Dubi and an Anisimov. Sad to see those guys go, as neither is bad at all, but come on.
Prospects: Of course, this is where Columbus makes up a little ground. But as it turns out, it's not much. We swap a 1st-rounder for a 3rd-rounder, which is of course giving the edge to the Blue Jackets, but we're discussing completely unknown players; neither of those picks is gonna be a top-5 overall. And we swap Tim Erixon for a defensive AHL-er named Steve Delisle, who probably isn't as good as Tim Erixon. Erixon probably has a decent upside, but it's all unproven. You'll never hear me complain about giving up someone who has the potential to be great for someone who is already very good.
Incidentally, the condition on the 3rd-rounder is that we give it back if we make it to the Cup Finals. If Nash pushes us to the Cup Finals, do you think anyone's gonna be complaining about a lost pick?
Price: Cry cry cry, Rick Nash costs a cap hit of $7.8 million, blah blah blah. Check out what happens when you use a little math before you complain about math, though. Dubinsky's cap hit is $4.2 million. Anisimov's is $1.875 million. Erixon's is $1.75 million. Mr. Calculator just called and told me that adds up to $7.825 million. So, assuming Erixon plays in the league next season either way, the Rangers actually save money under the cap next year.
(And Nash is only 34 when this contract ends - we're not exactly talking Brad Richards-length, here. At 28, Nash is in his prime, not on his way out of it.)
So I'm just not interested in hearing Ranger fans complain because they think every contract given to anyone over the age of 25 is Scott Gomez.
All in all, the Rangers' third and fourth lines got worse this off-season, and their first and second lines got better. I'm sad to see all those great character middle-of-the-pack guys go (Dubinsky, Mitchell, Prust, Fedotenko, Anisimov). But let's look at who's left, even assuming the Rangers make no further moves (sorry that I've flipped some wingers, it made organization easy):
Gaborik - Richards - Nash
Hagelin - Stepan - Callahan
Pyatt - Boyle - Kreider
Rupp - Halpern - Asham
All of last season, we talked about how the Rangers were a team full of 2nd- and 3rd-liners, and about how the coach didn't trust his bottom 6 enough. We all assumed the solution was that he had to learn to coach differently. Maybe instead, the solution was to give him a team that suits him better. When I look at this lineup, I'm inclined to give ice time the way Torts does, too. Maybe this is the team Torts needs, to take them to the next level.
And now, imagine if the Rangers can still land Shane Doan (there's plenty of cap space, by the way). This could be a lot worse, is all I'm saying.
The only problem now is that there's gonna be a work stoppage, and we won't actually get any hockey.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Realignment
A few months ago, a friend and I were discussing the proposed realignment and, of course, the fact that the NHL is too big now. I proposed that we merge four mediocre-market teams into one big franchise. We could combine the Carolina Hurricanes, Nashville Predators, Florida Panthers, and Tampa Bay Lightning. Today, with graphical help from an artist at work, I'm proud to introduce you all to my realignment solution... the Southern Weathercats!
(NB: I did not make this graphic. I simply asked someone at work, who has any skill at all, to make it for me.)
(NB: I did not make this graphic. I simply asked someone at work, who has any skill at all, to make it for me.)
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Whither the PK?
The Rangers' character-3rd-liner pool took another hit today, as Ruslan Fedotenko signed with the Philadelphia Flyers (yet another reason to like them and then immediately get angry at yourself for liking them). It's a 1 year, $1.75 million deal (a $350,000 raise over last season), and, much like with the Prust deal, while I can't be angry with Fedotenko for taking that deal or with Sather for not offering it, I'm still sad to see the guy go.
For what it's worth, to make up for the depth hemorrhaging we've been doing this week (Mitchell, Scott, Prust, Fedotenko, and Zuccarello), we did sign a little bit more than just Asham, Haley, and Newbury, whom I mentioned Tuesday. We agreed today to terms with some kid name Kyle Jean, so look for that to potentially matter in a few years, or not. But more importantly, we signed erstwhile Coyote Taylor Pyatt to a 2-year deal at $1.55 million per year. I think I'd rather have Pyatt at $1.55m than Feds at $1.75m, so I can't really complain.
But let me try: Fedotenko and Prust were two of the club's top penalty killers last season (and Mitchell was a pretty responsible forward in a jam as well). They've been nominally replaced by Asham and Pyatt. First of all, I'd never use the word "responsible" to describe Arron Asham for any reason. I'd use other, less savory ones. But here's my real point:
Last season (including playoffs), Prust and Fedotenko combined for 296:17 of shorthanded time on ice, and yet finished the season only a combined -2. Meanwhile, across their two respective teams, Asham and Pyatt, who combined for 1752:29 on ice, played a total of six shorthanded seconds between them. So, as excited as I am about seeing Taylor Pyatt suit up, I still think this offseason has not been kind to the New York Rangers thus far, especially on the PK.
For what it's worth, to make up for the depth hemorrhaging we've been doing this week (Mitchell, Scott, Prust, Fedotenko, and Zuccarello), we did sign a little bit more than just Asham, Haley, and Newbury, whom I mentioned Tuesday. We agreed today to terms with some kid name Kyle Jean, so look for that to potentially matter in a few years, or not. But more importantly, we signed erstwhile Coyote Taylor Pyatt to a 2-year deal at $1.55 million per year. I think I'd rather have Pyatt at $1.55m than Feds at $1.75m, so I can't really complain.
But let me try: Fedotenko and Prust were two of the club's top penalty killers last season (and Mitchell was a pretty responsible forward in a jam as well). They've been nominally replaced by Asham and Pyatt. First of all, I'd never use the word "responsible" to describe Arron Asham for any reason. I'd use other, less savory ones. But here's my real point:
Last season (including playoffs), Prust and Fedotenko combined for 296:17 of shorthanded time on ice, and yet finished the season only a combined -2. Meanwhile, across their two respective teams, Asham and Pyatt, who combined for 1752:29 on ice, played a total of six shorthanded seconds between them. So, as excited as I am about seeing Taylor Pyatt suit up, I still think this offseason has not been kind to the New York Rangers thus far, especially on the PK.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Nash rumors
(because, hey, everyone else is doing it)
So, the accepted wisdom thus far has been, as it was back around Trade Deadline Day, that Scott Howson's asking price for Rick Nash is far too high for Glen Sather to be able to pay it, requiring at least one of McDonagh, Stepan, and Kreider, all of whom Slats considers untouchable. And so everyone's been waiting for one of the two to change his mind on that, while both are kinda desperate to make a deal (the Rangers need that kind of big scoring presence up front; the Jackets need lots of pieces and are terrible and Nash wants out).
But then today a Blue Jackets beat writer tweeted that the Blue Jackets were willing to accept a package that does not include those three guys. Which doesn't jive at all with what we've been hearing, and which prompted Darren Dreger to respond that Howson "should let the NYR know that."
So, in conclusion, there are conflicting reports about which GMs want what for whom in the off-season. Weird, right?
Oh, and Ranger fans: I'm putting this on the table now. Rick Nash is very good at hockey. You need to give up value to get value. You can't pull off Gomez/Pyatt/Busto for Higgins/McDonagh/Valentenko every time. Just keep that in mind, is all.
So, the accepted wisdom thus far has been, as it was back around Trade Deadline Day, that Scott Howson's asking price for Rick Nash is far too high for Glen Sather to be able to pay it, requiring at least one of McDonagh, Stepan, and Kreider, all of whom Slats considers untouchable. And so everyone's been waiting for one of the two to change his mind on that, while both are kinda desperate to make a deal (the Rangers need that kind of big scoring presence up front; the Jackets need lots of pieces and are terrible and Nash wants out).
But then today a Blue Jackets beat writer tweeted that the Blue Jackets were willing to accept a package that does not include those three guys. Which doesn't jive at all with what we've been hearing, and which prompted Darren Dreger to respond that Howson "should let the NYR know that."
So, in conclusion, there are conflicting reports about which GMs want what for whom in the off-season. Weird, right?
Oh, and Ranger fans: I'm putting this on the table now. Rick Nash is very good at hockey. You need to give up value to get value. You can't pull off Gomez/Pyatt/Busto for Higgins/McDonagh/Valentenko every time. Just keep that in mind, is all.
Free Agency
So, I had planned a big post talking about free agency and everyone's status and all that. I wrote about half of it, too. Then the Del Close Marathon happened, and now here we are, post-July 1.
The executive summary of the post-that-wasn't is "everyone's talking about Parise and Nash, let's clarify why those are totally different situations by talking about free agency." Parise is a free agent, which means he can sign with any team, now that July 1 has happened. Nash is under contract to the Blue Jackets, which means he'd have to be traded, which can happen any time (but probably, now that July 1 has happened, won't happen until after the big-name free agents get settled).
So, as for the Rangers, we can all just sit tight and wait for trades, in terms of the big names. The following players from last season remained under contract through at least 2012-13, and therefore are not going anywhere unless traded: Gaborik, Richards, Callahan, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Boyle, Rupp, Kreider, Stepan, Hagelin, Staal, Girardi, McDonagh, Sauer, and Lundqvist. (Not counting Mike Sauer, that's 10 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goalie.) Zach Parise is not coming to New York (seriously, everyone), and the Rangers have no interest in Ryan Suter, which runs us out of all of the useful free agents.
The bad news, of course, is about losing all our mediocre depth, most prominently Brandon Prust, whose free agency took him to Montreal on a 4-year, $2.5 million/year deal. Understand: Glen Sather is right in asserting that Prust is not worth that deal. For perspective, Brian Boyle is currently costing $1.7m under the cap, and Dan Girardi $3.325m. Prust is not worth $2.5m. At the same time, team chemistry is something you need to consider with your 3rd- and 4th-line guys, just like with your backup netminder. While I ultimately agree with Sather's decision to walk, it does make the Rangers a worse team.
Of the remaining Ranger free agents: Stu Bickel re-upped with a 2-year deal at $750,000 per, and Marty Biron returns on a 2-year deal at $1.3m per. Both are great deals for all involved. Meanwhile, John Mitchell went to Colorado with a 2-year, $1.1m/year deal. If he was willing to take that contract, I think the Rangers should have offered it to him, but I like him more than most people do. Jeff Woywitka is returning to his first NHL team, the St. Louis Blues, for a 1-year, $950,000 deal. (Fine, whatever.) Also, John Scott, who played a gargantuan 33:19 for the Rangers, earning 1 shot and 5 penalty minutes for a -1 (totally worth that 5th-round pick, eh?) has gone off and signed with the Sabres for 1 year at $600,000. I don't miss him; I miss the 5th-round pick he used to be.
If he hasn't played in the league for long enough yet, a free agent is restricted - this means that if his old team makes him a good-enough offer (called a qualifying offer), then he's not allowed to sign with any other team (even if he doesn't accept the offer). The Rangers had 3 restricted free agents going into this off-season: Zuccarello, Del Zotto, and Stralman. They sent qualifying offers to all 3, though none have been accepted yet, and Zuccarello is off to the KHL anyway. The only free agents that leaves (from the big club roster) are Fedotenko and Eminger, who are not restricted and have not yet signed with the Rangers or anyone else.
Finally, the Rangers made a couple of additions since the start of free agency on Sunday: a pair of useless "tough guys" to supposedly "replace Prust," which they will not do because Prust's biggest values were on the penalty kill and in the locker room, not in his willingness to lose fights to men twice his size whenever his team asked him to. Micheal Haley comes to us from the always-classy New York Islanders, 2 years, $600,000 per. And, of course, because he has his fingers on the pulse of the fanbase, Slats signed, consummate douchebag Arron Asham to 2 years, $1 million per.
Ultimately, these cheap tough-guy signings are dumb. The Rangers need to get bigger by bringing in bigger, more powerful forwards - guys who play like Jagr, Ovechkin, and Nash - not by bringing in pugilists with hockey sticks that Torts will play 3 minutes a game. Also, Asham is a fuck-for-fuck who shouldn't play at all, and who is already 34. Remember the great Donald Brashear experiment? So do I.
Other than a few AHL moves (reupping Kris Newbury while letting Chad Johnson go to Phoenix and Jonathan Audy-Marchessault go to Columbus...), that's the free agency summary so far. Now we sit tight while Zach Parise and Ryan Suter figure out what to do. In the meanwhile, maybe we hear news about Stralman, Fedotenko, Eminger, or Del Zotto. Once Parise and Suter are settled, we open our ears for trades again, ideally for either Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan.
PS: We can get into salary cap stuff another time, but basically: the Rangers have plenty of room to work with this season - something like $18 million free under the cap with already 18 players under contract. The concern, however, is not backing themselves into a corner for future seasons. In either next off-season or the one after, the following contracts expire: Sauer, McDonagh, Hagelin, Stepan, Anisimov, Biron, Lundqvist, Bickel, Girardi, Kreider, Rupp, Boyle, Callahan, Gaborik.
The executive summary of the post-that-wasn't is "everyone's talking about Parise and Nash, let's clarify why those are totally different situations by talking about free agency." Parise is a free agent, which means he can sign with any team, now that July 1 has happened. Nash is under contract to the Blue Jackets, which means he'd have to be traded, which can happen any time (but probably, now that July 1 has happened, won't happen until after the big-name free agents get settled).
So, as for the Rangers, we can all just sit tight and wait for trades, in terms of the big names. The following players from last season remained under contract through at least 2012-13, and therefore are not going anywhere unless traded: Gaborik, Richards, Callahan, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Boyle, Rupp, Kreider, Stepan, Hagelin, Staal, Girardi, McDonagh, Sauer, and Lundqvist. (Not counting Mike Sauer, that's 10 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goalie.) Zach Parise is not coming to New York (seriously, everyone), and the Rangers have no interest in Ryan Suter, which runs us out of all of the useful free agents.
The bad news, of course, is about losing all our mediocre depth, most prominently Brandon Prust, whose free agency took him to Montreal on a 4-year, $2.5 million/year deal. Understand: Glen Sather is right in asserting that Prust is not worth that deal. For perspective, Brian Boyle is currently costing $1.7m under the cap, and Dan Girardi $3.325m. Prust is not worth $2.5m. At the same time, team chemistry is something you need to consider with your 3rd- and 4th-line guys, just like with your backup netminder. While I ultimately agree with Sather's decision to walk, it does make the Rangers a worse team.
Of the remaining Ranger free agents: Stu Bickel re-upped with a 2-year deal at $750,000 per, and Marty Biron returns on a 2-year deal at $1.3m per. Both are great deals for all involved. Meanwhile, John Mitchell went to Colorado with a 2-year, $1.1m/year deal. If he was willing to take that contract, I think the Rangers should have offered it to him, but I like him more than most people do. Jeff Woywitka is returning to his first NHL team, the St. Louis Blues, for a 1-year, $950,000 deal. (Fine, whatever.) Also, John Scott, who played a gargantuan 33:19 for the Rangers, earning 1 shot and 5 penalty minutes for a -1 (totally worth that 5th-round pick, eh?) has gone off and signed with the Sabres for 1 year at $600,000. I don't miss him; I miss the 5th-round pick he used to be.
If he hasn't played in the league for long enough yet, a free agent is restricted - this means that if his old team makes him a good-enough offer (called a qualifying offer), then he's not allowed to sign with any other team (even if he doesn't accept the offer). The Rangers had 3 restricted free agents going into this off-season: Zuccarello, Del Zotto, and Stralman. They sent qualifying offers to all 3, though none have been accepted yet, and Zuccarello is off to the KHL anyway. The only free agents that leaves (from the big club roster) are Fedotenko and Eminger, who are not restricted and have not yet signed with the Rangers or anyone else.
Finally, the Rangers made a couple of additions since the start of free agency on Sunday: a pair of useless "tough guys" to supposedly "replace Prust," which they will not do because Prust's biggest values were on the penalty kill and in the locker room, not in his willingness to lose fights to men twice his size whenever his team asked him to. Micheal Haley comes to us from the always-classy New York Islanders, 2 years, $600,000 per. And, of course, because he has his fingers on the pulse of the fanbase, Slats signed, consummate douchebag Arron Asham to 2 years, $1 million per.
Ultimately, these cheap tough-guy signings are dumb. The Rangers need to get bigger by bringing in bigger, more powerful forwards - guys who play like Jagr, Ovechkin, and Nash - not by bringing in pugilists with hockey sticks that Torts will play 3 minutes a game. Also, Asham is a fuck-for-fuck who shouldn't play at all, and who is already 34. Remember the great Donald Brashear experiment? So do I.
Other than a few AHL moves (reupping Kris Newbury while letting Chad Johnson go to Phoenix and Jonathan Audy-Marchessault go to Columbus...), that's the free agency summary so far. Now we sit tight while Zach Parise and Ryan Suter figure out what to do. In the meanwhile, maybe we hear news about Stralman, Fedotenko, Eminger, or Del Zotto. Once Parise and Suter are settled, we open our ears for trades again, ideally for either Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan.
PS: We can get into salary cap stuff another time, but basically: the Rangers have plenty of room to work with this season - something like $18 million free under the cap with already 18 players under contract. The concern, however, is not backing themselves into a corner for future seasons. In either next off-season or the one after, the following contracts expire: Sauer, McDonagh, Hagelin, Stepan, Anisimov, Biron, Lundqvist, Bickel, Girardi, Kreider, Rupp, Boyle, Callahan, Gaborik.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
So, let me get this straight
A sober, single, consenting adult female said to a sober, single, consenting adult male, "if you follow me on Twitter, I'll send you a naked picture of me." Then he did, and then she may have.
...what am I missing?
...what am I missing?
Monday, June 25, 2012
The draft was awesome
But I'm a few days too late to write up anything you haven't already seen about the Rangers' (and other teams') picks. If you missed it all, just go read Scotty Hockey's recap - pay special attention to the "still not drafting any goalies ever" part (although, admittedly, Vasilevsky and Subban were both taken by the time the Rangers picked).
On top of that, you probably also heard that the Devils, one pick after the Rangers, drafted Stefan Matteau, whose father made his name famous in Ranger-Devil history. I have to admit it was pretty heartbreaking to hear them announce that pick. Part of me feels like they spent a first-round pick just to make Ranger fans sad. And honestly, would you blame Gordie Clark if he spent a first-rounder just to somehow break the hearts of Devil fans everywhere?
Meanwhile, it seems like Scott Howson and Garth Snow's competition for "GM you'd feel most comfortable replacing and instantly doing a better job than" seems to have come to a head at the draft, when the two incompetent former players actually tried to make a deal with each other. Check this mishegas: the Islanders apparently wanted NHL-ready defensive prospect Ryan Murray, and therefore Columbus's second-overall pick which ended up getting him, so badly that they offered the Blue Jackets their entire draft for it.
I am not making this up. The Islanders had not traded away any of their 2012 picks, including their 4th-overall first-rounder, and they offered all. fucking. seven of them. This would have given the Blue Jackets, who had already traded away their 5th-rounder, 12 picks in this year's entry draft, including the #4 overall. Of course, Columbus rejected the deal.
Dear Garth Snow or Scott Howson, three days ago,
I don't care if Ryan Murray does turn out to be the next Nicklas Lidstrom: right now, he is an 18-year-old who has never played a day in the NHL, and you can't possibly know that. Your team is shit, and what you need right now is not one great player, but lots of okay-to-good ones. By giving up on Murray, you are still guaranteed to be able to draft at least either Morgan Reilly or Griffin Reinhart (and probably your choice of the two, assuming the Canadiens are interested in a big forward, like Alex Galchenyuk or something). In exchange, you also get to draft a butt-ton of other players who probably aren't terrible, and maybe in a few years you could play a playoff game or four. Doesn't that sound nice?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Love,
Aaron
On top of that, you probably also heard that the Devils, one pick after the Rangers, drafted Stefan Matteau, whose father made his name famous in Ranger-Devil history. I have to admit it was pretty heartbreaking to hear them announce that pick. Part of me feels like they spent a first-round pick just to make Ranger fans sad. And honestly, would you blame Gordie Clark if he spent a first-rounder just to somehow break the hearts of Devil fans everywhere?
Meanwhile, it seems like Scott Howson and Garth Snow's competition for "GM you'd feel most comfortable replacing and instantly doing a better job than" seems to have come to a head at the draft, when the two incompetent former players actually tried to make a deal with each other. Check this mishegas: the Islanders apparently wanted NHL-ready defensive prospect Ryan Murray, and therefore Columbus's second-overall pick which ended up getting him, so badly that they offered the Blue Jackets their entire draft for it.
I am not making this up. The Islanders had not traded away any of their 2012 picks, including their 4th-overall first-rounder, and they offered all. fucking. seven of them. This would have given the Blue Jackets, who had already traded away their 5th-rounder, 12 picks in this year's entry draft, including the #4 overall. Of course, Columbus rejected the deal.
Dear Garth Snow or Scott Howson, three days ago,
I don't care if Ryan Murray does turn out to be the next Nicklas Lidstrom: right now, he is an 18-year-old who has never played a day in the NHL, and you can't possibly know that. Your team is shit, and what you need right now is not one great player, but lots of okay-to-good ones. By giving up on Murray, you are still guaranteed to be able to draft at least either Morgan Reilly or Griffin Reinhart (and probably your choice of the two, assuming the Canadiens are interested in a big forward, like Alex Galchenyuk or something). In exchange, you also get to draft a butt-ton of other players who probably aren't terrible, and maybe in a few years you could play a playoff game or four. Doesn't that sound nice?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Love,
Aaron
Thursday, May 24, 2012
NBC Sports sucks at math
So, apparently, NBC Sports has stopped the Garden from hosting a Game 6 viewing party. Why? Because viewership during Game 4, when the Garden hosted their last viewing party, was low. And, hell, 7,000 people attended that viewing party.
Let's have a quick conversation about orders of magnitude. Apparently, Game 4 had 1.26 million home viewers nationally, a low for the series (as far as games broadcast on NBC Sports were concerned). Game 1 had 1.28 million, and Game 2 had 1.34 million, making Game 4's viewership about 80,000 people smaller than the series high.
Let's extremely generously that absolutely everybody who watched Game 4 at the Garden would otherwise have done so in their homes. None of them - these are the people who chose to go see the game in the most public place they could - instead go out to a bar and watch with friends. And let's, even more generously, assume that absolutely no one at the watch party was there with a friend. They were all single-ticket strangers, and they all went to their individual homes and watched the game with absolutely no one else. In that incredibly naïve scenario, viewership rises by an absolute maximum of 7,000 people. Which, if they're aligned correctly, at absolute best raise Game 4's viewership from 1.26 million home viewers nationally to 1.27 home viewers nationally. Making it a low for the series, about 70,000 people smaller than the series high.
Meanwhile, it pisses off 7,000 hockey fans who are dedicated enough to go into the Garden just to watch your broadcast on a big TV.
NBC Sports, your problem is that people don't know how to like watching hockey on TV, because you're shitty at showing it to them. If I'm in your shoes, inconveniencing and disappointing the handful of people that do want to watch my broadcast is probably not #1 on my problem-solving list!
Let's have a quick conversation about orders of magnitude. Apparently, Game 4 had 1.26 million home viewers nationally, a low for the series (as far as games broadcast on NBC Sports were concerned). Game 1 had 1.28 million, and Game 2 had 1.34 million, making Game 4's viewership about 80,000 people smaller than the series high.
Let's extremely generously that absolutely everybody who watched Game 4 at the Garden would otherwise have done so in their homes. None of them - these are the people who chose to go see the game in the most public place they could - instead go out to a bar and watch with friends. And let's, even more generously, assume that absolutely no one at the watch party was there with a friend. They were all single-ticket strangers, and they all went to their individual homes and watched the game with absolutely no one else. In that incredibly naïve scenario, viewership rises by an absolute maximum of 7,000 people. Which, if they're aligned correctly, at absolute best raise Game 4's viewership from 1.26 million home viewers nationally to 1.27 home viewers nationally. Making it a low for the series, about 70,000 people smaller than the series high.
Meanwhile, it pisses off 7,000 hockey fans who are dedicated enough to go into the Garden just to watch your broadcast on a big TV.
NBC Sports, your problem is that people don't know how to like watching hockey on TV, because you're shitty at showing it to them. If I'm in your shoes, inconveniencing and disappointing the handful of people that do want to watch my broadcast is probably not #1 on my problem-solving list!
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
By Popular Demand
So, here's a thing I'm learning about myself: when the Rangers actually make a run in the playoffs, I guess I get too overwhelmed and don't actually blog at all. How about that! Sometimes I Tweet, for what it's worth?
Anyway, a buddy was over for Game 4 the other night, and we were talking about Michael Del Zotto's peerless performance. Naturally, the conversation turned to the exemplar, erstwhile Ranger-defenseman-who-blows-but-supposedly-occasionally-scores, the Wandering Latvian himself. Which enabled me to say a sentence I am very, very proud of being able to say: "Oh, I wrote some poetry about Sandis Ozolinsh once."
I've put my acclaimed hockey poetry on this blog once before, but little do you know that I've been writing double dactyls for years. These three I wrote back in 2006 (obviously), and it was requested that I reprint (which is a very funny word to use about a blog) them here. They're not really too relevant, as Ozolinsh hasn't even been in the NHL for 4 years, and hasn't been a Ranger since Chris Kreider was 14. But here they are nonetheless.
If nothing else, these serve to remind you just how shitty our situation was not so long ago.
----------------------------
Stickitty Suckity
Sandis S. Ozolinsh
cannot do anything
other than lose:
blow every play he makes
über-dramatically,
leave every Ranger fan
singing the blues.
----------------------------
Puckilly Pukeally
Sandis P. Ozolinsh
ruined a season by
joining the team -
spoke of great skills he had
"super-offensively."
Turns out Glen's veterans
aren't all they seem.
----------------------------
Fuckitall Fuckitall
Sandis F. Ozolinsh
felt that he hadn't quite
fucked up enough,
flew down the ice surface
sub-ill-advisedly,
scored on his goal, and said,
"Hey, hockey's tough!"
Anyway, a buddy was over for Game 4 the other night, and we were talking about Michael Del Zotto's peerless performance. Naturally, the conversation turned to the exemplar, erstwhile Ranger-defenseman-who-blows-but-supposedly-occasionally-scores, the Wandering Latvian himself. Which enabled me to say a sentence I am very, very proud of being able to say: "Oh, I wrote some poetry about Sandis Ozolinsh once."
I've put my acclaimed hockey poetry on this blog once before, but little do you know that I've been writing double dactyls for years. These three I wrote back in 2006 (obviously), and it was requested that I reprint (which is a very funny word to use about a blog) them here. They're not really too relevant, as Ozolinsh hasn't even been in the NHL for 4 years, and hasn't been a Ranger since Chris Kreider was 14. But here they are nonetheless.
If nothing else, these serve to remind you just how shitty our situation was not so long ago.
----------------------------
Stickitty Suckity
Sandis S. Ozolinsh
cannot do anything
other than lose:
blow every play he makes
über-dramatically,
leave every Ranger fan
singing the blues.
----------------------------
Puckilly Pukeally
Sandis P. Ozolinsh
ruined a season by
joining the team -
spoke of great skills he had
"super-offensively."
Turns out Glen's veterans
aren't all they seem.
----------------------------
Fuckitall Fuckitall
Sandis F. Ozolinsh
felt that he hadn't quite
fucked up enough,
flew down the ice surface
sub-ill-advisedly,
scored on his goal, and said,
"Hey, hockey's tough!"
Monday, May 7, 2012
What We Learned
This is what a three-game suspension looks like:
This doesn't even deserve league review in the first place:
Please, someone. Help me out. Tell me I'm being a biased Ranger fan. Why is this okay?
This doesn't even deserve league review in the first place:
Please, someone. Help me out. Tell me I'm being a biased Ranger fan. Why is this okay?
Thursday, May 3, 2012
One for the ages
Listen, people: if someone tries to tell you that compressing ice time is a way to make your players too tired, and that as playoff games go longer and longer, the team with the shorter bench is more likely to lose, maybe don't listen to him? Maybe that guy's a dick.
Last night, Ryan McDonagh played 53 fucking minutes and 17 fucking seconds in the same fucking hockey game, good for 20th all-time on the NHL's single-game ice time list (since the stat started getting recorded in 1987). Along with McDonagh's performance, Marc Staal's 49:34 (43rd on that same list), Dan Girardi's 44:26, Michael Del Zotto's 43:33, and even forward Ryan Callahan's 41:48 all surpassed the highest ice time of any Capital, Dennis Wideman's 40:42. Meanwhile, no Capital saw less than erstwhile Hershey Bear Keith Aucoin, who played 17:21, and on the other bench sat Mike Rupp, who saw 15:45, John Mitchell, who saw 13:54, and defenseman Stu Bickel, 16.7% of his team's defensive corps, played only 3:24 (all in the first two periods), 1.5% of his team's defensive time on ice.
And yet. When the Rangers looked up from the 20th longest game in the National Hockey League's 95-year history, when the curtain finally came down on their franchise's longest game since before the beginning of World War II, it was the bruised, bloody, and battered, but hardly beaten, Blueshirts who came away with the win. At the end of the day (well, really, it was at the beginning of the following day by then, wasn't it?), it was Marian Gaborik whose game-winning goal ultimately disappointed a Verizon Center crowd which refused to show any signs of the fatigue it no doubt felt. In the storied history of this Original Six franchise, only Fred Cook, scoring with 28 seconds left in the third OT in Montréal on March 26, 1932, has won it for the Rangers later in a game than Gaborik did last night.
Last night, Ryan McDonagh played 53 fucking minutes and 17 fucking seconds in the same fucking hockey game, good for 20th all-time on the NHL's single-game ice time list (since the stat started getting recorded in 1987). Along with McDonagh's performance, Marc Staal's 49:34 (43rd on that same list), Dan Girardi's 44:26, Michael Del Zotto's 43:33, and even forward Ryan Callahan's 41:48 all surpassed the highest ice time of any Capital, Dennis Wideman's 40:42. Meanwhile, no Capital saw less than erstwhile Hershey Bear Keith Aucoin, who played 17:21, and on the other bench sat Mike Rupp, who saw 15:45, John Mitchell, who saw 13:54, and defenseman Stu Bickel, 16.7% of his team's defensive corps, played only 3:24 (all in the first two periods), 1.5% of his team's defensive time on ice.
And yet. When the Rangers looked up from the 20th longest game in the National Hockey League's 95-year history, when the curtain finally came down on their franchise's longest game since before the beginning of World War II, it was the bruised, bloody, and battered, but hardly beaten, Blueshirts who came away with the win. At the end of the day (well, really, it was at the beginning of the following day by then, wasn't it?), it was Marian Gaborik whose game-winning goal ultimately disappointed a Verizon Center crowd which refused to show any signs of the fatigue it no doubt felt. In the storied history of this Original Six franchise, only Fred Cook, scoring with 28 seconds left in the third OT in Montréal on March 26, 1932, has won it for the Rangers later in a game than Gaborik did last night.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Neat Stuff
The topic: assorted semi-interesting facts about the second round of the 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs. And....go!
With a 2/8 matchup and a 3/4 matchup in the West, and a 1/7 matchup and a 5/6 matchup in the East, the second round this year contains exactly one team of each seed number (1-8).
In the West, Kings are the only team that pulled off an upset. In the East, the Rangers are the only team that didn't suffer one.
The Rangers are moving on from defeating the team from Canada's capital city to try and defeat the team from America's capital city.
Three of the final four teams left standing in the East are from the Atlantic Division. If the Rangers win their series, the Conference Finals will be an intra-divisional matchup. (THOUGHT EXERCISE: How much less exciting would these Playoffs be after realignment? Answer in 500 words or less.)
The four teams remaining in the East are separated by a maximum of just over 200 miles (about 4 and a half hours by car). The four remaining teams in the West are separated by over 2000 miles (about 4 and a half hours by airplane).
Remember how three of the remaining teams in the Playoffs are from the Atlantic Division? Well, none of the other five has ever won the Cup before.
With a 2/8 matchup and a 3/4 matchup in the West, and a 1/7 matchup and a 5/6 matchup in the East, the second round this year contains exactly one team of each seed number (1-8).
In the West, Kings are the only team that pulled off an upset. In the East, the Rangers are the only team that didn't suffer one.
The Rangers are moving on from defeating the team from Canada's capital city to try and defeat the team from America's capital city.
Three of the final four teams left standing in the East are from the Atlantic Division. If the Rangers win their series, the Conference Finals will be an intra-divisional matchup. (THOUGHT EXERCISE: How much less exciting would these Playoffs be after realignment? Answer in 500 words or less.)
The four teams remaining in the East are separated by a maximum of just over 200 miles (about 4 and a half hours by car). The four remaining teams in the West are separated by over 2000 miles (about 4 and a half hours by airplane).
Remember how three of the remaining teams in the Playoffs are from the Atlantic Division? Well, none of the other five has ever won the Cup before.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Do professional athletes get tired?
Coach Tortorella clearly feels that they don't. But I wonder if they might. I'm pretty sure that at the end of an NHL game, especially a playoff game, the players are a little exhausted. Exhausted enough to affect performance? Maybe.
As you know, two nights ago, the Rangers fell to the Senators, 3-2 in overtime, to even the series at 2 games apiece. As you probably also heard, the loss was the Rangers' seventh consecutive Playoff OT loss - you have to go back to April 29, 2007 (Game 3 of the Second Round, against Buffalo) for the last time the Rangers won a Playoff game in OT. This is, of course, a very small sample size spread over a number of years, and therefore meaningless. But I do wonder if John Tortorella's Rangers, specifically, might be less geared toward winning an extended game, because the coach tires his players out so much.
As you know, two nights ago, the Rangers fell to the Senators, 3-2 in overtime, to even the series at 2 games apiece. As you probably also heard, the loss was the Rangers' seventh consecutive Playoff OT loss - you have to go back to April 29, 2007 (Game 3 of the Second Round, against Buffalo) for the last time the Rangers won a Playoff game in OT. This is, of course, a very small sample size spread over a number of years, and therefore meaningless. But I do wonder if John Tortorella's Rangers, specifically, might be less geared toward winning an extended game, because the coach tires his players out so much.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
A stray thought
I don't know much about basketball. I mean, I could probably identify a basketball hoop in a lineup of tall things, and I'm fairly certain that I've heard of Shaq. But that's as far as it goes, so take this with a grain of salt.
From what I understand, college basketball is considered a more respectable sport than NBA basketball. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I've heard from multiple basketball fans about how March Madness is when they really watch all the time, because the NBA is just kinda weird and spectacular, and the college games are where real basketball skill comes out. Again, I have no idea what "real basketball skill" is, this is just a thing I've heard.
Anyway, I was (obviously) thinking about hockey today, between watching the filthy brawl the Penguins brought into Philadelphia in lieu of a hockey game this afternoon and hearing about the totally arbitrary suspension decisions handed down this evening. The obvious connection for me was that games like this afternoon's are made possible by decisions like this evening's. It's a larger-scale version of what happens in games: last night, the linesmen didn't skate in to stop Matt Carkner from wailing on Brian Boyle, so eventually Brandon Dubinsky had to, which got him thrown out of the game. Similarly, this afternoon, the referees left James Neal on the ice after he jumped into Sean Couturier's head, which led to further brawls with him immediately afterwards.
On a larger scale, this is what the NHL is doing: failing to appropriately police the players, thus creating situations in which terrible shit happens on the ice. We already talked about the non-suspension on Shea Weber, and what kind of message it sends. When the decision-making in general is as arbitrary as it's been this week, there is no incentive for players to not be dirtbags. And on a large scale, when the NHL fails to send any kind of message (other than "Sometimes we suspend people, moreso if we don't like them that much, maybe"), it leads to debacles like we saw this afternoon, in which it's possible that Matt Cooke actually was the cleanest Penguin on the ice.
So, I was thinking about that, and I was thinking about how it seems to be getting worse lately. And I found myself extrapolating to what the NHL would look like 10 years from now, if it kept doling out this same brand of weird, arbitrary non-justice. It wasn't pretty. And so I found myself wondering if real hockey fans, such as myself, might just start getting our hockey from other places - if maybe by my 50s I'd just be a big Cornell fan or something. Which is why, you see, I made the connection and found myself thinking about basketball, something I do not do very often, because I am pretty bad at it.
I think a dog won the Basketball Cup one year? Disney made a documentary about it? Something like that.
Regardless, then I remembered what Gary Bettman's job was from 1981 to 1992. And then I got really depressed. So I wrote this blog entry. I don't feel better.
From what I understand, college basketball is considered a more respectable sport than NBA basketball. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I've heard from multiple basketball fans about how March Madness is when they really watch all the time, because the NBA is just kinda weird and spectacular, and the college games are where real basketball skill comes out. Again, I have no idea what "real basketball skill" is, this is just a thing I've heard.
Anyway, I was (obviously) thinking about hockey today, between watching the filthy brawl the Penguins brought into Philadelphia in lieu of a hockey game this afternoon and hearing about the totally arbitrary suspension decisions handed down this evening. The obvious connection for me was that games like this afternoon's are made possible by decisions like this evening's. It's a larger-scale version of what happens in games: last night, the linesmen didn't skate in to stop Matt Carkner from wailing on Brian Boyle, so eventually Brandon Dubinsky had to, which got him thrown out of the game. Similarly, this afternoon, the referees left James Neal on the ice after he jumped into Sean Couturier's head, which led to further brawls with him immediately afterwards.
On a larger scale, this is what the NHL is doing: failing to appropriately police the players, thus creating situations in which terrible shit happens on the ice. We already talked about the non-suspension on Shea Weber, and what kind of message it sends. When the decision-making in general is as arbitrary as it's been this week, there is no incentive for players to not be dirtbags. And on a large scale, when the NHL fails to send any kind of message (other than "Sometimes we suspend people, moreso if we don't like them that much, maybe"), it leads to debacles like we saw this afternoon, in which it's possible that Matt Cooke actually was the cleanest Penguin on the ice.
So, I was thinking about that, and I was thinking about how it seems to be getting worse lately. And I found myself extrapolating to what the NHL would look like 10 years from now, if it kept doling out this same brand of weird, arbitrary non-justice. It wasn't pretty. And so I found myself wondering if real hockey fans, such as myself, might just start getting our hockey from other places - if maybe by my 50s I'd just be a big Cornell fan or something. Which is why, you see, I made the connection and found myself thinking about basketball, something I do not do very often, because I am pretty bad at it.
I think a dog won the Basketball Cup one year? Disney made a documentary about it? Something like that.
Regardless, then I remembered what Gary Bettman's job was from 1981 to 1992. And then I got really depressed. So I wrote this blog entry. I don't feel better.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
It's shit like this
Holy shit how do you not suspend Shea Weber holy shit you guys seriously?
Did you not see this? Why have you not seen this? Go look at this.
My favorite angle is shown from about 0:43 to about 0:52 in that video. I'll wait. Watch it as many times as you like.
Sufficiently angry? Good. Here's the thing: not suspended at all. This is a league with humongous-big concussion problems! Even that one-and-only-hockey-player-we're-supposed-to-care-about had one for a while, you may have heard about it? Here's a great way to not reduce head injuries: allow players to just slam each other's heads into the boards like it ain't no thang. It is a thang, NHL. It is very much a thang. This is brutal, intentional, and has potential to cause serious head injury! This is a fucking no-brainer! Shanny, what say you?
"We reached out to Detroit following the game and were informed that Zetterberg did not suffer an apparent injury and should be in the lineup for Game 2. This play and the fine that addressed it will be significant factors in assessing any incidents involving Shea Weber throughout the remainder of the playoffs."
Right. 'Cause. You know. Weber did his best to slam Zetterberg's head into the boards in such a way that it wouldn't give him a concussion. You can clearly tell from the video: he angles his hand in such a way that the smash will only cause immediate pain, and definitely not any lasting damage. Obviously. Plus, we know for sure that Zetterberg is fine, because concussions always reveal themselves fully immediately following hits. Can't think of any famous concussion cases in recent NHL history, wherein a team didn't figure out its star player was concussed until a game or two later, right?
Look: Brendan Shanahan's job is hard. You can't always tell, analyzing the video of a play, whether something was malicious or incidental, and degree of injury doesn't always correspond to intent. These things are inherently subtle and subjective. But occasionally, you are handed a gift. Every once in a while, you get to see a video in which someone very obviously and intentionally picks up a dude's head and slams it hard into some plexiglass. Those are the days that you should rejoice that you finally got an easy one to get right.
We all recall that John Tortorella got fined $20,000 last week for calling the Penguins arrogant, right? (Yes, I know that Bettman said it was because Tortorella cursed in the presser. I'm far too lazy to go collect countless clips of coaches cursing in pressers, which they do all the time, without penalty. Everyone, including Torts, understands exactly why he was really fined.) I'm not here to complain about that fine, I'm here to present a basis of comparison.
The CBA states that the maximum player fine for an incident is $2500, and that's exactly what the NHL fined Weber today. Last week's post-game presser cost John Tortorella $20,000. I know the NHL can't do anything about the maximum player fine, but it could easily have found its nutsack and suspended Weber, if it wanted to make any kind of statement about player safety. Without a suspension, you're left with this incident looking, to the casual observer, ten times more acceptable than a head coach badmouthing another team. Why would the NHL want to send that kind of message?
Did you not see this? Why have you not seen this? Go look at this.
My favorite angle is shown from about 0:43 to about 0:52 in that video. I'll wait. Watch it as many times as you like.
Sufficiently angry? Good. Here's the thing: not suspended at all. This is a league with humongous-big concussion problems! Even that one-and-only-hockey-player-we're-supposed-to-care-about had one for a while, you may have heard about it? Here's a great way to not reduce head injuries: allow players to just slam each other's heads into the boards like it ain't no thang. It is a thang, NHL. It is very much a thang. This is brutal, intentional, and has potential to cause serious head injury! This is a fucking no-brainer! Shanny, what say you?
"We reached out to Detroit following the game and were informed that Zetterberg did not suffer an apparent injury and should be in the lineup for Game 2. This play and the fine that addressed it will be significant factors in assessing any incidents involving Shea Weber throughout the remainder of the playoffs."
Right. 'Cause. You know. Weber did his best to slam Zetterberg's head into the boards in such a way that it wouldn't give him a concussion. You can clearly tell from the video: he angles his hand in such a way that the smash will only cause immediate pain, and definitely not any lasting damage. Obviously. Plus, we know for sure that Zetterberg is fine, because concussions always reveal themselves fully immediately following hits. Can't think of any famous concussion cases in recent NHL history, wherein a team didn't figure out its star player was concussed until a game or two later, right?
Look: Brendan Shanahan's job is hard. You can't always tell, analyzing the video of a play, whether something was malicious or incidental, and degree of injury doesn't always correspond to intent. These things are inherently subtle and subjective. But occasionally, you are handed a gift. Every once in a while, you get to see a video in which someone very obviously and intentionally picks up a dude's head and slams it hard into some plexiglass. Those are the days that you should rejoice that you finally got an easy one to get right.
We all recall that John Tortorella got fined $20,000 last week for calling the Penguins arrogant, right? (Yes, I know that Bettman said it was because Tortorella cursed in the presser. I'm far too lazy to go collect countless clips of coaches cursing in pressers, which they do all the time, without penalty. Everyone, including Torts, understands exactly why he was really fined.) I'm not here to complain about that fine, I'm here to present a basis of comparison.
The CBA states that the maximum player fine for an incident is $2500, and that's exactly what the NHL fined Weber today. Last week's post-game presser cost John Tortorella $20,000. I know the NHL can't do anything about the maximum player fine, but it could easily have found its nutsack and suspended Weber, if it wanted to make any kind of statement about player safety. Without a suspension, you're left with this incident looking, to the casual observer, ten times more acceptable than a head coach badmouthing another team. Why would the NHL want to send that kind of message?
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Also...
This past weekend, the Pens' party line was "the Flyers bring out the worst in us." So what's the explanation for Brooks Orpik going knee-on-knee on Derek Stepan in a dogshit, uninspired 4-1 lead with 4:00 left?
East chances: updated again
One more time:
New York Rangers:
-- 1st, vs. Florida/Ottawa/Washington
Boston Bruins:
-- 2nd, vs. Ottawa/Washington
Florida Panthers:
-- 3rd, vs. New Jersey
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Pittsburgh Penguins:
-- 4th, vs. Philadelphia
Philadelphia Flyers:
-- 5th, vs. Pittsburgh
New Jersey Devils:
-- 6th, vs. Florida/Washington
Ottawa Senators:
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Washington Capitals:
-- 3rd, vs. New Jersey
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
New York Rangers:
-- 1st, vs. Florida/Ottawa/Washington
Boston Bruins:
-- 2nd, vs. Ottawa/Washington
Florida Panthers:
-- 3rd, vs. New Jersey
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Pittsburgh Penguins:
-- 4th, vs. Philadelphia
Philadelphia Flyers:
-- 5th, vs. Pittsburgh
New Jersey Devils:
-- 6th, vs. Florida/Washington
Ottawa Senators:
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Washington Capitals:
-- 3rd, vs. New Jersey
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Eastern Possibilities: Updated
OK, so I do think it's neat. Updated to reflect tonight's games:
New York Rangers:
-- 1st, vs. Florida/Ottawa/Washington/Buffalo
Boston Bruins:
-- 2nd, vs. Ottawa/Washington
Florida Panthers:
-- 3rd, vs. Philadelphia/New Jersey
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
-- 9th, ELIMINATED
Pittsburgh Penguins:
-- 4th, vs. Philadelphia/New Jersey
-- 5th, vs. Philadelphia
Philadelphia Flyers:
-- 4th, vs. Pittsburgh
-- 5th, vs. Pittsburgh
-- 6th, vs. Florida/Washington
New Jersey Devils:
-- 5th, vs. Pittsburgh
-- 6th, vs. Florida/Washington
Ottawa Senators:
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Washington Capitals:
-- 3rd, vs. Philadelphia/New Jersey
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
-- 9th, ELIMINATED
Buffalo Sabres:
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
-- 9th, ELIMINATED
New York Rangers:
-- 1st, vs. Florida/Ottawa/Washington/Buffalo
Boston Bruins:
-- 2nd, vs. Ottawa/Washington
Florida Panthers:
-- 3rd, vs. Philadelphia/New Jersey
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
-- 9th, ELIMINATED
Pittsburgh Penguins:
-- 4th, vs. Philadelphia/New Jersey
-- 5th, vs. Philadelphia
Philadelphia Flyers:
-- 4th, vs. Pittsburgh
-- 5th, vs. Pittsburgh
-- 6th, vs. Florida/Washington
New Jersey Devils:
-- 5th, vs. Pittsburgh
-- 6th, vs. Florida/Washington
Ottawa Senators:
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
Washington Capitals:
-- 3rd, vs. Philadelphia/New Jersey
-- 7th, vs. Boston
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
-- 9th, ELIMINATED
Buffalo Sabres:
-- 8th, vs. New York Rangers
-- 9th, ELIMINATED
Potential Playoff Opponents: East
I was looking at the standings today, and rather than what will probably happen, I was thinking about what could theoretically possibly happen. I thought it was a neat way to look at things. So even though tomorrow, many of these possibilities may be eliminated, I thought I'd share it with you. By team, what follows is a comprehensive list of possible 1st-round playoff situations in the East. This might be a neat way to, night by night, eliminate certain outcomes? Although, since I'm going away for the weekend for Passover, maybe I won't ever get around to actually doing that. Anyway, I thought it was neat. So here it is. (Notably absent from this list are the Lightning, Jets, Hurricanes, Maple Leafs, Islanders, and Canadiens, all of whom have been eliminated from contention.)
Friday, March 30, 2012
Pittsburgh PHWA Embarrasses Itself
The Bill Masterson Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the NHL player who, in the eyes of the PHWA, best exemplifies "the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey." Every season around this time, every chapter of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association nominates one player from its local NHL team for the award, and then at the end of the regular season, the PHWA collectively narrows the 30 nominees down to three finalists, then selects a winner.
Generally, the PHWA tends to focus on the "perseverance" part of the description, awarding the trophy to a player who has overcome something major. Past winners have included Penguin Lowell McDonald, for a 75-point season after suffering serious knee damage; Rod Gilbert, because he had come back from a major back injury; Mario Lemieux, because of that whole cancer thing; and Jose Theodore, who had a great season immediately following his son's death.
When not given to someone who overcame tragedy, the trophy usually goes to someone who has just generally been a standup guy for many season. It's gone to Jean Ratelle for "lifelong dedication to strong, clean hockey," Henri Richard for winning the Cup 11 times, Dave Taylor for playing all 17 seasons with the Kings, and Adam Graves for "all-around dedication to hockey." The whole list can be found on Wikipedia.
Generally, the PHWA tends to focus on the "perseverance" part of the description, awarding the trophy to a player who has overcome something major. Past winners have included Penguin Lowell McDonald, for a 75-point season after suffering serious knee damage; Rod Gilbert, because he had come back from a major back injury; Mario Lemieux, because of that whole cancer thing; and Jose Theodore, who had a great season immediately following his son's death.
When not given to someone who overcame tragedy, the trophy usually goes to someone who has just generally been a standup guy for many season. It's gone to Jean Ratelle for "lifelong dedication to strong, clean hockey," Henri Richard for winning the Cup 11 times, Dave Taylor for playing all 17 seasons with the Kings, and Adam Graves for "all-around dedication to hockey." The whole list can be found on Wikipedia.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Welcome to the playoffs
I can't imagine a game feeling better than that game last night. Peter DeBoer decides to open by putting out Cam Janssen, Eric Boulton, and Ryan Carter, which is a pretty classy opening. Torts screamed at DeBoer for it from the bench, which was awesome, and then put out Rupp, Bickel, and Prust to answer the call. Hey Cam Janssen, riddle me this: what happens when you come into the Garden and try to fuck with the Rangers like that?
Rupp absolutely destroys Boulton, Bickel turns Carter's face into a bloody crazy mess, Rupp and Janssen more or less draw, and Bryce Salvador, as classy as his coach, jumps onto Bickel's back after his fight with Carter ends, earning himself an extra 10-minute misconduct. Then, with that out of the way, 1:08 later, Dubinsky rips one past Uncle Daddy, and the Rangers never give up that lead.
Rupp absolutely destroys Boulton, Bickel turns Carter's face into a bloody crazy mess, Rupp and Janssen more or less draw, and Bryce Salvador, as classy as his coach, jumps onto Bickel's back after his fight with Carter ends, earning himself an extra 10-minute misconduct. Then, with that out of the way, 1:08 later, Dubinsky rips one past Uncle Daddy, and the Rangers never give up that lead.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Playoff update
With the Rangers' win and Toronto's loss tonight, add the Maple Leafs to the list of teams that cannot mathematically catch the Rangers. Additionally, because tonight's was a regulation win, the Rangers' magic number becomes 98, no matter what. We are now 3 points from clinching a playoff spot. You know. For the record.
Coach's Corner Minus Coach
Man, it can't be easy to be Ron MacLean, right? Being Don Cherry's co-host is probably pretty maddening. Well, here at Play Petr Prucha, I feel like MacLean deserves more of a spotlight. A big thanks here goes out to FRANCOfranco of Two Catchers for putting this video together for me. Let's all sit back and enjoy Coach's Corner, without Don Cherry.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Some playoff facts
So, following a discussion on Twitter (What? Don't you judge me.) yesterday, I started to look at some playoff stuff. Not "if the season ended today..." - those articles are bullshit; we all know how the standings work, and we can just go look at them to find out. If the season ended today, for example, we'd rematch the Caps, the Pens would play the Flyers, and Boston would get to prove just how bullshit Ottawa is. Tomorrow, it may be different. This is not interesting until it cements a little further. Did you notice our lead on the Penguins is down to 4 points and no games-in-hand? I noticed that. Anyway. What I did look at is what is definitely true, because some things have already taken shape.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
A quickie
Patrick Burke is currently doing an "Ask Me Anything" on Reddit, to talk about the new You Can Play Project. Yes, I know, Reddit is where self-inflicted social ineptitude gathers to revel in its own inside jokes and misogyny. But every so often, it is very slightly more than that. Anyway, one of the comments to Burke was about how pretty Hank is, which prompted him to reveal the following ordered summary of most of the feedback he's gotten on the project so far, in general (quoted directly from Burke's comment on Reddit)
1) This is great!
2) You sound like your dad.
3) I've always hated Brian Burke, but this is great!
4) Is there any way to show Lundqvist's eyes in color in the next one?
5) When is [my favorite team] going to show up?
6) Lundqvist is a pretty man!
Thought you'd enjoy that.
1) This is great!
2) You sound like your dad.
3) I've always hated Brian Burke, but this is great!
4) Is there any way to show Lundqvist's eyes in color in the next one?
5) When is [my favorite team] going to show up?
6) Lundqvist is a pretty man!
Thought you'd enjoy that.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
All the wrong reasons
So, besides the important one, it was also announced today that some other Atlantic Division captain was skating with his team and could be playing soon. You may have heard about it. In honor of yet another rumor block about the most dominant player of the last two years returning to the ice, I bring you this thing, from professional sportswriter Rob Rossi. Rossi presents 10 reasons (because no one reads articles, but everyone reads lists) that the Penguins can win the Stanley Cup this season. He's right, of course. They can. He's just wrong about why.
So, if you'll forgive my poor attempt at a once-great artform, it's Fire Joe Morgan o'Clock.
10 reasons why Penguins can win Stanley Cup
Reasons 1 through 10 should be "they will likely make the playoffs, and any team can beat any other on any given night, and the Penguins are a pretty good hockey team," but let's dive in anyway.
So, if you'll forgive my poor attempt at a once-great artform, it's Fire Joe Morgan o'Clock.
10 reasons why Penguins can win Stanley Cup
Reasons 1 through 10 should be "they will likely make the playoffs, and any team can beat any other on any given night, and the Penguins are a pretty good hockey team," but let's dive in anyway.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
NHL Rulebook
53.1 Throwing Equipment A player shall not throw a stick or any other
object in any zone. A player who has lost or broken his stick may only
receive a stick at his own players' bench or be handed one from a
teammate on the ice (see 10.3).
10.3 Broken Stick - Player
...
A player who has lost or broken his stick may only receive a stick
at his own players' bench or be handed one from a teammate on the
ice. A player will be penalized if he throws, tosses, slides or shoots a
stick to a teammate on the ice. A player may not participate in the
play using a goalkeeper's stick. A minor penalty shall be imposed for
an infraction of this rule.
...
object in any zone. A player who has lost or broken his stick may only
receive a stick at his own players' bench or be handed one from a
teammate on the ice (see 10.3).
10.3 Broken Stick - Player
...
A player who has lost or broken his stick may only receive a stick
at his own players' bench or be handed one from a teammate on the
ice. A player will be penalized if he throws, tosses, slides or shoots a
stick to a teammate on the ice. A player may not participate in the
play using a goalkeeper's stick. A minor penalty shall be imposed for
an infraction of this rule.
...
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Insult to Injury!
OK, now I'm really pissed off about that loss to the Blackhawks last week. Because Biron let in those 4 goals so quickly, apparently he is superstitiously doing away with those totally sweet old-school brown pads and blocker. That sucks! Those looked great! That is all.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
OK, Fine, Let's Talk about Rick Nash
I was gonna do a post about how everyone needs to stop saying Brad Richards needs to "find another gear" or whatever they say, and how just like Marian Gaborik last season, he's learning a new system, and he's actually really, really valuable to this team right now, et cetera. But no one is shutting up about Rick Nash! So let's talk about Rick Nash instead.
As I may have mentioned in this space before, Rick Nash is one of my hockey crushes (others include Dustin Byfuglien and Brooks Orpik). These are the kinds of guys I covet: not necessarily superstars in their own right, but solid guys I'd love to see in Ranger colors. At the same time, right now, I'm finding it easy to side with the Garden Faithful, who erupted with "We don't want you!" when Nash knotted the contest late in the 3rd the other night (related: I fucking love Ranger fans).
But why? Why are Ranger fans, possibly including myself, so opposed to bringing in a hard-working, world-class talent like Nash? A few reasons. Some are dumb. Let's talk about it. At length.
As I may have mentioned in this space before, Rick Nash is one of my hockey crushes (others include Dustin Byfuglien and Brooks Orpik). These are the kinds of guys I covet: not necessarily superstars in their own right, but solid guys I'd love to see in Ranger colors. At the same time, right now, I'm finding it easy to side with the Garden Faithful, who erupted with "We don't want you!" when Nash knotted the contest late in the 3rd the other night (related: I fucking love Ranger fans).
But why? Why are Ranger fans, possibly including myself, so opposed to bringing in a hard-working, world-class talent like Nash? A few reasons. Some are dumb. Let's talk about it. At length.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
And this morning, I am still angry
Last night, I was very angry, and when I woke up this morning, I discovered that I was still angry, and that is because I hate the Devils very much. I guess some of you may have heard about this? The Rangers were down 1-0 until Anisimov scored a game-tying goal with 5 seconds left, except the goal was immediately waved off by official Dan O'Rourke due to Interference on the Goalkeeper. This was a terrible call, and I am angry about it, because it led directly to another loss to the Devils, and as I mentioned, I hate the Devils very much.
Let's take a look at the play.
Now, let's read the rules together.
Let's take a look at the play.
Now, let's read the rules together.
Monday, February 6, 2012
What is this, a picture blog now?
I mean, probably not? But here's a two-sentence-and-one-picture entry nonetheless.
Friday, February 3, 2012
DING DONG
You guys, guess who I won't miss. Go on, guess.
Give up? I'll tell you.
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS
SCHMUUUUUUUUUUUCK
I will not miss him at all, because he is terrible!
Give up? I'll tell you.
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS
SCHMUUUUUUUUUUUCK
I will not miss him at all, because he is terrible!
Friday, January 27, 2012
The NHL Shop is on point
H/T to @Lesliehockeyy, who went to the NHL Shop online to purchase a Dan Girardi All-Star jersey, and found a whole new way his underrated-ness comes through. So I went to check it out for myself (click for full screenshot):
Fantastic work, guys!
Fantastic work, guys!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Boston Tea Partier
This is awesome, you guys! This is seriously awesome. You see, I was concerned about having to root against the Bruins, hanging out here at the top of the East, because I kinda like the Bruins. But now, it turns out star goalie Tim Thomas, previously known to us only as a yogi, is also a total dickwad, you guys! This is great news! It's hard to root against a dude who doesn't get his break as the starter until age 32, then puts on a show against an Olympic Gold Medal-winner to win the Cup at 37. But it's easy to root against a total dickwad!
In case you haven't heard, President Obama invited the Bruins to the White House, to congratulate them for winning the Stanley Cup. (To summarize: not only are they so good at a game that they get to play it for a living, they are so good at it that the fucking President invites them over to hang out, just because they're so good at it.) Tim Thomas, apparently one to thoroughly examine the mouths of even those horses he is given as gifts, chose not to go. Let me take you through my thought process, as it slowly, over the last 24 hours or so, went through all the levels on which that's shitty.
In case you haven't heard, President Obama invited the Bruins to the White House, to congratulate them for winning the Stanley Cup. (To summarize: not only are they so good at a game that they get to play it for a living, they are so good at it that the fucking President invites them over to hang out, just because they're so good at it.) Tim Thomas, apparently one to thoroughly examine the mouths of even those horses he is given as gifts, chose not to go. Let me take you through my thought process, as it slowly, over the last 24 hours or so, went through all the levels on which that's shitty.
Friday, January 20, 2012
In which a friend and I discuss some hockey teams
Him: Man, we were right about the Bruins. We were right about the Wild. We're about to be right about Florida.
Me: It's so easy to be right!
Him: Yeah.
Me: Here's who else we're right about: Ottawa. Ottawa is bullshit.
Him: Yeah. Who is more bullshit: Ottawa or NJ? Ottawa is +2. NJ is -3, and they're 8-1 in shootouts.
Me: Ooh, that's a good question.
Me: It's so easy to be right!
Him: Yeah.
Me: Here's who else we're right about: Ottawa. Ottawa is bullshit.
Him: Yeah. Who is more bullshit: Ottawa or NJ? Ottawa is +2. NJ is -3, and they're 8-1 in shootouts.
Me: Ooh, that's a good question.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
"Scoring Woes"
Hey, look, people are talking about the Rangers' scoring woes today. Most of them say things like "Marian Gaborik needs to start scoring again"; "The power play is horrible"; and "It's all Olivia Munn's fault." Of course, all three of these things are true. But here's my take.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Concerned?
I read this short piece by my good friends over at Free Tank Carter the other day. First of all, it's entirely correct. Pens fans who are panicking about being in 9th right now (don't get me wrong, they are a pleasure to behold) are fools. In addition to everything FTC says (all teams are streaky, the Pens get lots of shots on net, Kris Letang is a beast (even though I'm not immediately inclined to put a ton of stock in Point Shares per game)), the Pens have a season goal differential of +12, behind only the Rangers, Bruins, and Flyers in the East (each of which is frequently some sportswriter's flavor-of-the-week team-to-beat). People calling for Bylsma's head are idiots, recently-fired NHL coaches, or jealous of his fashion sense and erstwhile mustache.
But it got me thinking: should other teams that are panicking chill out? Should some teams maybe start to panic? What about the Rangers?
But it got me thinking: should other teams that are panicking chill out? Should some teams maybe start to panic? What about the Rangers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)