(Part One here)
When we left our tale, Gary Bettman had just heavily insinuated that Thrashers fans' low attendance numbers are to blame for this relocation to a city I will probably not start referring to as "The 'Peg." So, let's look at those attendance numbers. In my very short search, I was only able to find numbers back as far as 2000-'01, which probably casts the Thrash in a slightly-worse-than-accurate light, since it leaves off their probably-well-attended inaugural season. Across their ten others in Atlanta, the team averaged 14,685 fans per game. Hey, maybe Bettman's right: that sounds kinda low, huh?
Here's the fun fact: the team will be moving to the current home of the Manitoba Moose, the MTS Centre in downtown Winnipeg. Its total sell-out capacity for a hockey game is 15,015. That is to say, the arena, if it sells out every single game for the next decade, will average exactly 330 people more than the average Thrashers game over the last decade. Incidentally, 15,015 is also 378 fewer people than fit in the Winnipeg Arena, previously-mentioned home of the Winnipeg Jets.
And thus, now, a brief list of facts and things we are being asked to believe are facts:
--In 1996, the Winnipeg Jets had to be moved to Phoenix because, among other things, their arena, the Winnipeg Arena, was too small.
--The Winnipeg Arena seated 15,393 for hockey.
--The Atlanta Thrashes have to be moved to Winnipeg because, among other things, their annual attendance has been too low.
--The Thrashers have averaged 14,685 fans per game over the last decade.
--The arena in Winnipeg to which the Thrashers are being moved, the MTS Centre, seats 15,015 for hockey.
Look, yes, obviously, there are other factors than attendance that go into considering an NHL market. For example, it must be cheaper to run a 15,000-seat arena in Winnipeg, MB than it is to run an 18,000-seat house in Atlanta, GA. And surely there are financial advantages to being the only major sports team in the province (as opposed to competing with the Braves, Hawks, and Falcons). But the fact lingers that attendance was specifically mentioned as a major factor in this move, just like arena size was specifically mentioned in the Jets' move to Phoenix, and that's not really adding up to me.
Which brings us back to the inciting question: exactly how did this happen? Surely Gary Bettman isn't just weirdly in love with Arizona. In fact, his seeming inconsistency here is really just smart for the NHL's profit margin. Recall that Bettman has always championed the league making money as its real mark of success. What he's done here is take two very unprofitable franchises and use them both to make profit for the league itself (individual teams' profit margins be damned).
For context, let's take a look at just how unprofitable the Thrashers are. It's hard to find consistent, comparable data across seasons for all NHL teams, but Forbes Magazine has done some profiling of NHL teams over the last few seasons, and I used what data they had here. In 2009-2010, the Thrashers' operating revenue was -$8 million, which is to say they lost $8 million to operate that year. The previous season, they lost $1.8 million; $6.1 million the season before that; and $5.4 million in 2005-2006. That's all the (consistent) data I could find, a scattered four-season average loss of $5.325 million per season. That sounds like a lot, but I'm giving it to you now mostly for context.
True North Sports & Entertainment is spending $170 million on the purchase of the Thrashers. Of that money, $110 goes to the Atlanta Spirit in exchange for the franchise itself. The other $60 million goes to the NHL, as a relocation fee. The franchise loses $5 million a season, and Bettman still makes $60 million off of them.
This is actually a pretty viable business model. It's only reasonable to expect a relocation fee: the NHL wants to make a clear statement that moving franchises is bad. It makes it harder for teams to maintain fans, it's a lot of upkeep, this is all pretty obvious. So we're pretty comfortable with the idea of team ownership being penalized financially, to the tune of a pretty large sum, for moving a team. The message is: don't move teams. Once you've got that fee in place, though, it becomes an emergent strategy to abuse it. The Thrashers are losing a little money every season, and Bettman just lets it go. One day, the owners get tired of losing money, some new owner picks up the team and moves them, paying a tithe to the NHL that surpasses the combined losses of the franchise since it started losing money. Then, in a decade, when the Winnipeg Whatevers have once again lost money every season, and True North gets tired of footing the bill, the whole thing happens again. The NHL keep making money off of perennially awful teams. Pretty good, eh?
There's more. Let's say you have a franchise like the Phoenix Coyotes. According to Forbes, Phoenix lost (in the three seasons Forbes had data for) $9.7 million, $18.5 million, and $20.1 million. Way more than Atlanta was losing. At that rate, a $60 million relocation fee wasn't gonna surpass more than a few seasons' worth of losses. So Bettman steps in and buys the team on behalf of the NHL, for $140 million (no relocation fee, of course). This is an investment Bettman can justify now better than ever: he knows the city of Glendale really wants to keep its NHL team (unlike Atlanta politicians, who have been significantly quieter). This affords him the opportunity to hang relocation over their heads. Bettman blames the monetary losses of the Coyotes on the city itself, claiming that it would be a profitable franchise elsewhere. He threatens to move the franchise, unless the city of Glendale is willing to recoup the NHL's losses. Glendale city council signs a deal to pay the NHL $25 million to keep the franchise in Phoenix for the season, with the NHL holding the right to renew the deal every season for up to 10 more years.
Now Bettman holds all the damn cards. If a buyer comes forward with a good offer on the table, the NHL can sell the team at any given time (the agreement is only renewed one season at a time). If the new owner wants to relocate at that point, Glendale can't do much to stop it, and the NHL collects a relocation fee. If no buyer comes forward, or Bettman doesn't like a buyer's offer, the NHL keeps operating the team for the time being, and as long as he can keep their annual losses under $25 million, he's still making money on them.
And that's how you turn two of the the NHL's three least profitable franchises (sorry, Fish Sticks) into money-makers for the league, without actually putting forward any effort to make them better hockey teams. See? Shitty at understanding hockey, surprisingly competent at business.
I'm not sure what my point was here. I'm not going to claim that Atlanta necessarily deserves an NHL franchise, or that Winnipeg necessarily doesn't. In fact, I'm probably of the opinion that the whole late-90s expansion that brought us Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota, and Nashville diluted the league too much for its own good, and the state of the NHL might be a little stronger if it were still 26 teams today instead of 30. I just thought it might be useful to look at the real numbers driving what happened in Winnipeg, Phoenix, and Atlanta: the NHL doesn't necessarily like Arizona more than it likes Georgia, and running a franchise in Manitoba isn't necessarily more profitable than running one in Georgia. Rather, it was very profitable for the NHL itself to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix and move the Thrashers to Winnipeg. So, that's where we are.
My sympathy goes out to all Thrashers fans everywhere. It probably won't make you feel a ton better, but remember that adorable ukelele girl who wrote that Puck Bunnies song? She's back, with a message to Winnipeg and Gary Bettman, music courtesy of Cee-Lo Green. And so, here it is, your Moment of Zen:
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
A Tale of Three Cities, Part One
Winnipeg, Atlanta, and Phoenix, by the numbers: I come to quantify the Thrashers, not to praise them. In the wake of the news of the Thrash's impending relocation to Manitoba, while Canadians are celebrating another franchise's return to the country that created the sport, a handful of Atlantans (my eminently pitiable father among them) are left with some reasonable questions. Chiefly: exactly how did this happen? I'm in no position to make an argument about what awful, uncommitted owners the Atlanta Spirit were (and they were) - that's better left to plenty of other people. But I am in a position to type some numbers at you, and sometimes even do some arithmetic to them. So let's go with that one.
Many years ago, there was a hockey team you may have heard of called the Winnipeg Jets. They were some WHA team for a while, then they became some NHL team. They were okay? In 1980-81, they apparently won 9 games of the then 80-game season. But then they got a little better than that. Anyway, they ran into some financial trouble in the early 90s, because NHL players started to make a lot more money, but they were still located in Winnipeg, MB. Also, they had one of the smallest arenas in the league, seating only 15,393.
In 1996, said financial troubles ultimately overwhelmed what was apparently a very small but fiercely loyal fan base, and the Winnipeg Jets were bought by some guy named Jerry Colangelo for an amount of money that I couldn't easily find and did not look very hard for. They were moved to Glendale, Arizona and redubbed the Phoenix Coyotes. The Coyotes, who were actually pretty decent, played in a place called the America West Arena, which seated 16,210 for hockey. The arena unsurprisingly sucked at doing so, since it marked the first-ever time that 60% of Phoenix had ever seen ice outside of a tumbler [citation needed].
I told you the arena sucked so I could tell you that they built a new rink, Glendale Arena, which actually works like an NHL rink and seats 17,534. Despite that, the franchise again ran into financial trouble: turns out a brand new, expensive arena and a mediocre hockey team don't jive well fiscally with the indifferent population of a desert city with an average high temperature of 66 degrees in December, a day's drive from Tijuana and over 2500 miles from Montréal. With no buyers in on the table, in 2009, the Phoenix Coyotes filed for bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, 19 years after losing their Flames to Calgary, Atlanta saw a new expansion team drop the puck for its first NHL game: the Thrashers. Like the previously-mentioned Jets, they were also pretty shitty. You know most of this part, so I'll skip it: they stayed pretty shitty, and they stayed in the middle of Georgia, and they were therefore not a super-profitable team.
With similar stages set, the two flagging teams ended up taking radically different paths. When no buyer was found for the Coyotes, the NHL stepped in, proudly proclaiming that it would not abandon a franchise, and bought the team itself, for $140 million. It was labeled a temporary measure, but to date, the Coyotes are still owned by the NHL. Two years later, the same NHL, under the same commissioner, did nothing to prevent the sale of the Thrashers by their disinterested ownership to True North Sports & Entertainment, who intend to move them back to the place our story began, Winnipeg.
Again, I'm not here to focus on the parts that make sense: the ownership of the Thrashers was never looking to make the team good, while the Coyotes showed some promise; the city council of Glendale was working to keep the Coyotes around, while Atlanta wasn't; etc. I'm here to tell you some numbers and come to the defense of a fan base at which Gary Bettman has insinuated blame. I might not be writing this if, in the weeks leading up to the sale, Bettman hadn't said this:
---------------
I understand that there may be dissatisfaction there, but demonstrating your dissatisfaction by not going to games is an interesting strategy. It's your absolute right, but if it becomes a turnoff for anybody who might want to buy the franchise, the long-term consequences could be severe.
---------------
WRONG. Well, not technically wrong, just extremely misleading. Atlanta did not lose the Thrashers due to a waning fan base. Yes, you have to follow the money, but then you have to make sure you keep following it: it is not actually more profitable to own a team in Winnipeg than to own one in Atlanta. Rather, it was more profitable for the NHL to move the Thrashers than to leave them in Georgia. Bettman is bad at understanding hockey, pretty much across the board. But give the guy his due: he's a decent businessman.
I should leave my office now, so let's call this part one of a two-part eulogy. In part two, I intend to look at two factors: 1) why I don't believe that Atlanta is a less profitable NHL city than Winnipeg, and 2) why I do think that the NHL profits from the relocation (moreso than a return of the Phoenix team).
Many years ago, there was a hockey team you may have heard of called the Winnipeg Jets. They were some WHA team for a while, then they became some NHL team. They were okay? In 1980-81, they apparently won 9 games of the then 80-game season. But then they got a little better than that. Anyway, they ran into some financial trouble in the early 90s, because NHL players started to make a lot more money, but they were still located in Winnipeg, MB. Also, they had one of the smallest arenas in the league, seating only 15,393.
In 1996, said financial troubles ultimately overwhelmed what was apparently a very small but fiercely loyal fan base, and the Winnipeg Jets were bought by some guy named Jerry Colangelo for an amount of money that I couldn't easily find and did not look very hard for. They were moved to Glendale, Arizona and redubbed the Phoenix Coyotes. The Coyotes, who were actually pretty decent, played in a place called the America West Arena, which seated 16,210 for hockey. The arena unsurprisingly sucked at doing so, since it marked the first-ever time that 60% of Phoenix had ever seen ice outside of a tumbler [citation needed].
I told you the arena sucked so I could tell you that they built a new rink, Glendale Arena, which actually works like an NHL rink and seats 17,534. Despite that, the franchise again ran into financial trouble: turns out a brand new, expensive arena and a mediocre hockey team don't jive well fiscally with the indifferent population of a desert city with an average high temperature of 66 degrees in December, a day's drive from Tijuana and over 2500 miles from Montréal. With no buyers in on the table, in 2009, the Phoenix Coyotes filed for bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, 19 years after losing their Flames to Calgary, Atlanta saw a new expansion team drop the puck for its first NHL game: the Thrashers. Like the previously-mentioned Jets, they were also pretty shitty. You know most of this part, so I'll skip it: they stayed pretty shitty, and they stayed in the middle of Georgia, and they were therefore not a super-profitable team.
With similar stages set, the two flagging teams ended up taking radically different paths. When no buyer was found for the Coyotes, the NHL stepped in, proudly proclaiming that it would not abandon a franchise, and bought the team itself, for $140 million. It was labeled a temporary measure, but to date, the Coyotes are still owned by the NHL. Two years later, the same NHL, under the same commissioner, did nothing to prevent the sale of the Thrashers by their disinterested ownership to True North Sports & Entertainment, who intend to move them back to the place our story began, Winnipeg.
Again, I'm not here to focus on the parts that make sense: the ownership of the Thrashers was never looking to make the team good, while the Coyotes showed some promise; the city council of Glendale was working to keep the Coyotes around, while Atlanta wasn't; etc. I'm here to tell you some numbers and come to the defense of a fan base at which Gary Bettman has insinuated blame. I might not be writing this if, in the weeks leading up to the sale, Bettman hadn't said this:
---------------
I understand that there may be dissatisfaction there, but demonstrating your dissatisfaction by not going to games is an interesting strategy. It's your absolute right, but if it becomes a turnoff for anybody who might want to buy the franchise, the long-term consequences could be severe.
---------------
WRONG. Well, not technically wrong, just extremely misleading. Atlanta did not lose the Thrashers due to a waning fan base. Yes, you have to follow the money, but then you have to make sure you keep following it: it is not actually more profitable to own a team in Winnipeg than to own one in Atlanta. Rather, it was more profitable for the NHL to move the Thrashers than to leave them in Georgia. Bettman is bad at understanding hockey, pretty much across the board. But give the guy his due: he's a decent businessman.
I should leave my office now, so let's call this part one of a two-part eulogy. In part two, I intend to look at two factors: 1) why I don't believe that Atlanta is a less profitable NHL city than Winnipeg, and 2) why I do think that the NHL profits from the relocation (moreso than a return of the Phoenix team).
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Oh hey guys did you know I write a hockey blog
So, Blogger went down for a day a few weeks ago. When it came back, I kinda expected the entry I had written, that it lost, to eventually be restored, but it was not. Sad times. You would have liked it: Denis Potvin, who sucks, had made some disparaging comments about Avery's support of gay marriage. I made some jokes about a defense of the sanctity of marriage coming from a guy who beat his wife. Fun times were had by all. Oh, well.
While I was waiting for the post to come back (which, in the Gantt chart in my head, had to happen before I returned to posting), some shit went down that I had absolutely no idea how to write anything about, to the tune of Derek Boogaard passing away. I still don't know how to write anything about that.
Then the news that the Atlanta Spirit has sold the Atlanta Thrashers to True North Entertainment, which intends to relocate them to Winnipeg, Manitoba. That sale is pending 75% approval from the NHL Board of Governors (made up mostly of the owners and GMs of the league's 30 teams), and the move itself is pending a 50% approval from the same board. Both will absolutely come in their meeting on June 21, and then we will lose the Thrashers. More on that, by the numbers, in a later post, I think.
As long as we're on the hopefully-not-empty promises train, I will also get back to analyzing our cap situation soon.
Finally, some good news: you may have heard yesterday that Colin Campbell is stepping down as NHL's head disciplinarian (he will be retaining his post as VP of Hockey Operations). Rumor has it Brendan Shanahan will be taking over. This is largely awesome, because Brendan Shanahan understands how hitting in hockey is supposed to work. I'm a little afraid for Shanny, since he's taken on a job that is bound to get him hated by lots of hockey fans, but for now, I have to put my faith in him to start to overhaul a very broken system. So, hooray for that.
Anyway, I'm writing this thing again, is the point.
While I was waiting for the post to come back (which, in the Gantt chart in my head, had to happen before I returned to posting), some shit went down that I had absolutely no idea how to write anything about, to the tune of Derek Boogaard passing away. I still don't know how to write anything about that.
Then the news that the Atlanta Spirit has sold the Atlanta Thrashers to True North Entertainment, which intends to relocate them to Winnipeg, Manitoba. That sale is pending 75% approval from the NHL Board of Governors (made up mostly of the owners and GMs of the league's 30 teams), and the move itself is pending a 50% approval from the same board. Both will absolutely come in their meeting on June 21, and then we will lose the Thrashers. More on that, by the numbers, in a later post, I think.
As long as we're on the hopefully-not-empty promises train, I will also get back to analyzing our cap situation soon.
Finally, some good news: you may have heard yesterday that Colin Campbell is stepping down as NHL's head disciplinarian (he will be retaining his post as VP of Hockey Operations). Rumor has it Brendan Shanahan will be taking over. This is largely awesome, because Brendan Shanahan understands how hitting in hockey is supposed to work. I'm a little afraid for Shanny, since he's taken on a job that is bound to get him hated by lots of hockey fans, but for now, I have to put my faith in him to start to overhaul a very broken system. So, hooray for that.
Anyway, I'm writing this thing again, is the point.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Blogger is Back!
And apparently my post yesterday on Potvin, and his Sucking, will return soon. Good job, Blogger team, for getting things back so quickly!
Today's news snippet is this guy - according to some Philly paper, some anonymous NHL source claims that Winter Classic 2012 is going to definitely be Rangers at Flyers. Rumors have been circulating for a while, but this is the first time anyone halfway-reputable has claimed it's confirmed. On the one hand, I'm thrilled, and I'm already thinking about driving across Pennsylvania hung over on New Year's Day (lest I spend New Year's Eve in Philly). On the other hand, does the NHL really just not believe in the Western Conference anymore?
Presidents' Trophy Winners
2007: Buffalo Sabres (East), tied in points with Detroit Red Wings (West)
2008: Detroit Red Wings (West)
2009: San Jose Sharks (West)
2010: Washington Capitals (East)
2011: Vancouver Canucks (West)
Stanley Cup Winners
2007: Anaheim Ducks (West)
2008: Detroit Red Wings (West)
2009: Pittsburgh Penguins (East)
2010: Chicago Blackhawks (West)
2011: Undetermined
Winter Classic
2008:Penguins at Sabres (East)
2009:Red Wings at Blackhawks (West)
2010:Flyers at Bruins (East)
2011:Capitals at Penguins (East)
2012:Rangers at Flyers (East)
Over the 5 seasons preceding Winter Classic decisions, 3 of 5 Presidents' Trophy winners were from the West (with a fourth season being tied in points), 3 of 4 Stanley Cup winners were from the West (with this year's yet undetermined), and 1 of 5 Winter Classics will have been Western Conference games (while the Flyers and Penguins will have each gotten two games, and 22 teams will have gotten none).
Look: I know that the Winter Classic is a big NHL marketing event, and you need to pick the teams with the biggest markets, not the best teams. But hockey is not basketball: you can't market it by spotlighting 3 or 4 star players in 5 or 6 big markets. That's how Bettman's previous sport works, but it's not how ours does. Sometimes you have to market hockey with good hockey, too. And let's be honest: the West is where the better hockey is.
All that said, selfishly, I'm thrilled, and I'm gonna do everything I can to go.
Today's news snippet is this guy - according to some Philly paper, some anonymous NHL source claims that Winter Classic 2012 is going to definitely be Rangers at Flyers. Rumors have been circulating for a while, but this is the first time anyone halfway-reputable has claimed it's confirmed. On the one hand, I'm thrilled, and I'm already thinking about driving across Pennsylvania hung over on New Year's Day (lest I spend New Year's Eve in Philly). On the other hand, does the NHL really just not believe in the Western Conference anymore?
Presidents' Trophy Winners
2007: Buffalo Sabres (East), tied in points with Detroit Red Wings (West)
2008: Detroit Red Wings (West)
2009: San Jose Sharks (West)
2010: Washington Capitals (East)
2011: Vancouver Canucks (West)
Stanley Cup Winners
2007: Anaheim Ducks (West)
2008: Detroit Red Wings (West)
2009: Pittsburgh Penguins (East)
2010: Chicago Blackhawks (West)
2011: Undetermined
Winter Classic
2008:Penguins at Sabres (East)
2009:Red Wings at Blackhawks (West)
2010:Flyers at Bruins (East)
2011:Capitals at Penguins (East)
2012:Rangers at Flyers (East)
Over the 5 seasons preceding Winter Classic decisions, 3 of 5 Presidents' Trophy winners were from the West (with a fourth season being tied in points), 3 of 4 Stanley Cup winners were from the West (with this year's yet undetermined), and 1 of 5 Winter Classics will have been Western Conference games (while the Flyers and Penguins will have each gotten two games, and 22 teams will have gotten none).
Look: I know that the Winter Classic is a big NHL marketing event, and you need to pick the teams with the biggest markets, not the best teams. But hockey is not basketball: you can't market it by spotlighting 3 or 4 star players in 5 or 6 big markets. That's how Bettman's previous sport works, but it's not how ours does. Sometimes you have to market hockey with good hockey, too. And let's be honest: the West is where the better hockey is.
All that said, selfishly, I'm thrilled, and I'm gonna do everything I can to go.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Quick Addendum
Given that I made a point yesterday of listing all the NHLers represented by Uptown Sports, I figured I should also show the positive side and give credit where credit is due. And, oh look, another reason the Phoenix Coyotes get a positive mention on this blog. Paul Bissonnette, arguably the NHL's most popular tweeter (twitter...er? tweet...ist? twit? ...never mind), nutted up and tweeted: "I agree with Sean Avery and his comments on the same-sex marriage issue. If two people are happy together, let them be happy." This makes BizNasty a brave, vocal proponent of two extremely unpopular opinions around professional sports: supporting gay marriage, and agreeing with Sean Avery. Good job.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Fuck THIS Guy
I'll try to keep this short, lest you think I'm all political-like. (EDIT: I failed, of course.) Ideally by now you've seen this thing, where Sean Avery speaks up for HRC, counting himself among New Yorkers for Marriage Equality. If not, go check it out. It's pretty sweet, because professional athletes don't really do this. And people from Puck Daddy to the New York Times have covered it as the noteworthy issue it is.
Avery's spoken out in favor of not-being-a-dick-to-gay-people before, on a smaller scale, but this is a pretty big deal (gotta love the line "I treat everyone the way I expect to be treated"). Athletes are usually afraid to make statements like these, and Avery's a big damn hero for taking that plunge. Asked about concern about backlash from some of the more homophobic, neolithic players, Avery responded, "People have been calling me names for ten years just because I like to wear nice suits. It's going to take a lot to get me upset or get under my skin. I'm OK."
What a nice little heartwarming tale involving one of our favorite New Yorkers, right? Heaven forbid the fucking story just end there and leave us feeling all warm and fuzzy about humanity for a second or two.
Enter NHL agent Todd Reynolds, Vice President of agency firm Uptown Sports Management. Last night, Reynolds posted to the official Twitter stream of Uptown Sports: "Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage.' Legal or not, it will always be wrong." Yes, Mr. Reynolds, we noticed the quotes you put on marriage. Poignant. Dick.
In the usual way, Reynolds went on to tweet, about an hour later, the customary "I'm not being bigoted" comment people always issue after they discover the world didn't like it when they said something bigoted: "To clarify: this is not bigotry or hate towards gays. It is not intolerance in any way, shape, or form." Rrrrrrright.
It is one thing to keep your mouth shut, because you work in the world of professional sports, and you don't want to rock the boat. We don't all have to be as brave as Sean Avery. But it is another thing entirely to step into the public forum for the first time, just to speak out against the first athlete who had the balls to do something like this.
Understand: Mr. Reynolds didn't come out and make a statement for himself, like Avery did. He posted a Tweet (should that be capitalized?) to his management firm's official stream, thereby making a statement on behalf of the entire firm. Not only is he directly speaking for an entire agency, he is also indirectly speaking for a number of athletes that they represent. Totally uncalled for. In conclusion, fuck Todd Reynolds.
Oh, and because I'm that guy, the following is an exhaustive list of current NHL players whose representation Uptown Sports boasts:
Jonathan Bernier, Los Angeles Kings
Tyler Brenner, Toronto Maple Leafs
Andrew Brunette, Minnesota Wild
Kyle Clifford, Los Angeles Kings
Carlo Colaiacovo, St. Louis Blues
Andrew Desjardans, San Jose Sharks
Mike Fisher, Nashville Predators
Dustin Jeffrey, Pittsburgh Penguins
Cody McCormick, Buffalo Sabres
Chris Neil, Ottawa Senators
Scott Timmins, Florida Panthers
Gentlemen, your agent is a douchebag.
Avery's spoken out in favor of not-being-a-dick-to-gay-people before, on a smaller scale, but this is a pretty big deal (gotta love the line "I treat everyone the way I expect to be treated"). Athletes are usually afraid to make statements like these, and Avery's a big damn hero for taking that plunge. Asked about concern about backlash from some of the more homophobic, neolithic players, Avery responded, "People have been calling me names for ten years just because I like to wear nice suits. It's going to take a lot to get me upset or get under my skin. I'm OK."
What a nice little heartwarming tale involving one of our favorite New Yorkers, right? Heaven forbid the fucking story just end there and leave us feeling all warm and fuzzy about humanity for a second or two.
Enter NHL agent Todd Reynolds, Vice President of agency firm Uptown Sports Management. Last night, Reynolds posted to the official Twitter stream of Uptown Sports: "Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage.' Legal or not, it will always be wrong." Yes, Mr. Reynolds, we noticed the quotes you put on marriage. Poignant. Dick.
In the usual way, Reynolds went on to tweet, about an hour later, the customary "I'm not being bigoted" comment people always issue after they discover the world didn't like it when they said something bigoted: "To clarify: this is not bigotry or hate towards gays. It is not intolerance in any way, shape, or form." Rrrrrrright.
It is one thing to keep your mouth shut, because you work in the world of professional sports, and you don't want to rock the boat. We don't all have to be as brave as Sean Avery. But it is another thing entirely to step into the public forum for the first time, just to speak out against the first athlete who had the balls to do something like this.
Understand: Mr. Reynolds didn't come out and make a statement for himself, like Avery did. He posted a Tweet (should that be capitalized?) to his management firm's official stream, thereby making a statement on behalf of the entire firm. Not only is he directly speaking for an entire agency, he is also indirectly speaking for a number of athletes that they represent. Totally uncalled for. In conclusion, fuck Todd Reynolds.
Oh, and because I'm that guy, the following is an exhaustive list of current NHL players whose representation Uptown Sports boasts:
Jonathan Bernier, Los Angeles Kings
Tyler Brenner, Toronto Maple Leafs
Andrew Brunette, Minnesota Wild
Kyle Clifford, Los Angeles Kings
Carlo Colaiacovo, St. Louis Blues
Andrew Desjardans, San Jose Sharks
Mike Fisher, Nashville Predators
Dustin Jeffrey, Pittsburgh Penguins
Cody McCormick, Buffalo Sabres
Chris Neil, Ottawa Senators
Scott Timmins, Florida Panthers
Gentlemen, your agent is a douchebag.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
2011-12 Contracts
OK, so I'm not good at predicting playoff series. Whatever.
Sitting in a hotel room, on a business trip (the insane American game show "Minute to Win It" is on), I decided it's time to make good on that damn contract situation post. This'll be a good reference point. This entry will focus on the contracts that already exist between the Rangers and other players; a future entry will focus on our free agents.
Before we begin, a few notes. As you may have heard, Coach John Tortorella's contract was renewed for the next three seasons. There's no salary regulation on coaches, so I don't care how much it was for. That's good news. Second, about the cap itself: this season, it was $59.4 million. Expert projections (we call these "guesses") tell us that next season's will look something like $62.4 million. Although this is bullshit, it gives us a number to work with, and it's probably reasonably close to accurate.
Let's talk a little about the difference between one-way and two-way contracts. Simply put, a one-way contract is a contract between a player and the Rangers, while a two-way contract is a dual contract between the player and both the Rangers and the Connecticut Whale. Generally, a player on a two-way contract will make a very different salary based on which team he is playing for. On the other hand, if a player on a one-way contract is sent down to the minors (which is fairly rare), he will continue to make his full NHL salary. In either case, of course, a player on an AHL affiliate does not count against the cap.
Here's where it gets interesting for our Rangers. During the season, the cap is actually pro-rated by the day. The salary cap is split up by the day, as are individual player hits, and no team may exceed the daily cap. Fortunately, that math is the same as adding up the annual cap hits of the players on that day's roster and comparing the total to the annual cap. Easy. Over the summer, there's no daily hit, but there is a salary cap in effect. Until the pre-season starts, since there's no formal idea of a roster, the cap includes: all players on one-way contracts; and all players on two-way contracts, pro-rated based on what percentage of the season they played in the NHL the previous season.
So, for example, I'm on a two-way contract that pays me $500,000 for my NHL team and $50,000 for my AHL team. Last season, I was on my NHL team's roster for 94 of the season's 188 days. So, over this summer, I will count for $250,000 against the cap.
Now, there's a reason we don't usually give a shit about this summer cap stuff: the NHL allows a 10% increase on the salary cap over the summer, for maneuverability. What's that you say? This seems needlessly complicated? If you wanna allow for summer maneuverability, why not just not have a summer cap at all? This whole thing is stupid? Yes. This is all true. And yet, here we are.
But despite that 10% increase, which will put the summer cap (given our previous assumption of a $62.4 million cap) at $68.64 million, Ranger fans care this season. Because of the $6.5 million/year, one-way contract of Wade Redden. Obviously, Redden will be back in the AHL once the season begins, but until then, his $6.5 million will count against the summer cap. So, even if we have room to fit our desired team within next season's cap, we may have trouble getting there over the summer.
So, with all that in mind, let's get into it. First, the list of all the players with one-way contracts with the Rangers. For each player, I will list the cap hit and the number of seasons remaining on the contract (including 2011-2012).
Marian Gaborik - $7.5m, 3 yr
Chris Drury - $7.05m, 1 yr
Henrik Lundqvist - $6.875m, 3 yr
Wade Redden - $6.5m, 3 yr
Marc Staal - $3.975m, 4 yr
Wojtek Wolski - $3.8m, 1yr
Dan Girardi - $3.325m, 3 yr
Sean Avery - $1.9375m, 1 yr
Derek Boogaard - $1.625m, 3 yr
Erik Christensen - $0.925m, 1 yr
Martin Biron - $0.875m, 1 yr
Brandon Prust - $0.8m, 1 yr
On that list, Drury has a No-Movement Clause (cannot be traded or sent to the minors without his approval), Gaborik has a No-Trade Clause (cannot be traded without his approval), Redden has a Limited No-Trade Clause (can list 8 teams he refuses to be traded to), and Avery has a full No-Trade Clause over the summer (July 1-August 14) and a Limited No-Trade Clause for the rest of the year (can list 10 teams he refuses to be traded to).
So, that's $45.1875 million definitely locked up over the summer. Then, there are the two-way contracts. Those get a little more complicated, and not just because of the pro-rating mentioned earlier. Many of these contracts include performance-based bonuses, which are only paid out if some conditions are met (one-way contracts may include these also, it's just that none of ours do). Because they may or may not be paid out, the NHL allows these bonuses to go over the cap by some amount (7.5% of the cap, or something like $4.68 million). If a team takes advantage of this bonus cushion, and the bonuses do get paid out, they will come out of the following season's cap. So, the practical upshot for the summer cap is that we don't have to worry about those bonuses.
With all that in mind, here are the seven players currently on two-way contracts with the Rangers and the Whale, that ever saw the roster this season. Any players who never saw the Ranger roster this season, due to the pro-rating, will not count at all against this summer's cap.
Derek Stepan - $875,000, 2 yr. Played the entire season, putting his summer cap hit at $875,000.
Michael Del Zotto - $875,000 salary plus $212,500 in bonuses, 1 yr. Looks like he played something like 63% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $555,107.
Mats Zuccarello - $900,000 salary plus $850,000 in bonuses, 1 yr. Looks like he played something like 54% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $483,871.
Ryan McDonagh - $875,000 salary plus $425,000 in bonuses, 2 yr. Looks like he played something like 53% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $461,021.
Kris Newbury - $512,500, 1 yr. Looks like he played something like 18% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $93,683.
Evgeny Grachev - $654,166 salary plus $162,500 in bonuses, 2 yr. On the roster for like 9% of the season, for a summer cap hit of $56,272.
Cam Talbot - $690,000 salary plus $210,000 in bonuses, 1 yr. Was on the roster for something like half a percent of the season, giving him a summer cap hit of like $3710
So, if I understand things correctly, that ties up an additional $2,528,664, for a total of $47,716,164 already tied up under the summer cap. Assuming a figure of $62.4 million, and therefore a summer cap of $68.64 million, that leaves us $20,923,836 to work with. Not a ton, given all the names you'll note absent from the above lists, and therefore necessarily on the free agency lists (more on those later). Especially if we wanna, like, sign someone like Brad Richards?
What recourse do we have? Well, for the summer cap, it's pretty much retirement, buyouts, and trades. None of the above-mentioned contracts are special 35+ contracts, so we won't still be on the hook for any players who retire or play in the AHL, but as we know, demotion to the AHL doesn't help with the summer cap. Trades, obviously, would completely remove anyone's cap hit, as would that player's retirement. Other than that, if we're really desperate for cap space, we could always buy out someone's contract. But a buyout imposes an (admittedly lessened) cap penalty in next and future seasons, stretching out for twice the length of the remaining contract (according to a formula you don't care about right now). So, buyouts are almost always a bad idea.
So, there we are, with our current contracts. Up next: free agents.
Sitting in a hotel room, on a business trip (the insane American game show "Minute to Win It" is on), I decided it's time to make good on that damn contract situation post. This'll be a good reference point. This entry will focus on the contracts that already exist between the Rangers and other players; a future entry will focus on our free agents.
Before we begin, a few notes. As you may have heard, Coach John Tortorella's contract was renewed for the next three seasons. There's no salary regulation on coaches, so I don't care how much it was for. That's good news. Second, about the cap itself: this season, it was $59.4 million. Expert projections (we call these "guesses") tell us that next season's will look something like $62.4 million. Although this is bullshit, it gives us a number to work with, and it's probably reasonably close to accurate.
Let's talk a little about the difference between one-way and two-way contracts. Simply put, a one-way contract is a contract between a player and the Rangers, while a two-way contract is a dual contract between the player and both the Rangers and the Connecticut Whale. Generally, a player on a two-way contract will make a very different salary based on which team he is playing for. On the other hand, if a player on a one-way contract is sent down to the minors (which is fairly rare), he will continue to make his full NHL salary. In either case, of course, a player on an AHL affiliate does not count against the cap.
Here's where it gets interesting for our Rangers. During the season, the cap is actually pro-rated by the day. The salary cap is split up by the day, as are individual player hits, and no team may exceed the daily cap. Fortunately, that math is the same as adding up the annual cap hits of the players on that day's roster and comparing the total to the annual cap. Easy. Over the summer, there's no daily hit, but there is a salary cap in effect. Until the pre-season starts, since there's no formal idea of a roster, the cap includes: all players on one-way contracts; and all players on two-way contracts, pro-rated based on what percentage of the season they played in the NHL the previous season.
So, for example, I'm on a two-way contract that pays me $500,000 for my NHL team and $50,000 for my AHL team. Last season, I was on my NHL team's roster for 94 of the season's 188 days. So, over this summer, I will count for $250,000 against the cap.
Now, there's a reason we don't usually give a shit about this summer cap stuff: the NHL allows a 10% increase on the salary cap over the summer, for maneuverability. What's that you say? This seems needlessly complicated? If you wanna allow for summer maneuverability, why not just not have a summer cap at all? This whole thing is stupid? Yes. This is all true. And yet, here we are.
But despite that 10% increase, which will put the summer cap (given our previous assumption of a $62.4 million cap) at $68.64 million, Ranger fans care this season. Because of the $6.5 million/year, one-way contract of Wade Redden. Obviously, Redden will be back in the AHL once the season begins, but until then, his $6.5 million will count against the summer cap. So, even if we have room to fit our desired team within next season's cap, we may have trouble getting there over the summer.
So, with all that in mind, let's get into it. First, the list of all the players with one-way contracts with the Rangers. For each player, I will list the cap hit and the number of seasons remaining on the contract (including 2011-2012).
Marian Gaborik - $7.5m, 3 yr
Chris Drury - $7.05m, 1 yr
Henrik Lundqvist - $6.875m, 3 yr
Wade Redden - $6.5m, 3 yr
Marc Staal - $3.975m, 4 yr
Wojtek Wolski - $3.8m, 1yr
Dan Girardi - $3.325m, 3 yr
Sean Avery - $1.9375m, 1 yr
Derek Boogaard - $1.625m, 3 yr
Erik Christensen - $0.925m, 1 yr
Martin Biron - $0.875m, 1 yr
Brandon Prust - $0.8m, 1 yr
On that list, Drury has a No-Movement Clause (cannot be traded or sent to the minors without his approval), Gaborik has a No-Trade Clause (cannot be traded without his approval), Redden has a Limited No-Trade Clause (can list 8 teams he refuses to be traded to), and Avery has a full No-Trade Clause over the summer (July 1-August 14) and a Limited No-Trade Clause for the rest of the year (can list 10 teams he refuses to be traded to).
So, that's $45.1875 million definitely locked up over the summer. Then, there are the two-way contracts. Those get a little more complicated, and not just because of the pro-rating mentioned earlier. Many of these contracts include performance-based bonuses, which are only paid out if some conditions are met (one-way contracts may include these also, it's just that none of ours do). Because they may or may not be paid out, the NHL allows these bonuses to go over the cap by some amount (7.5% of the cap, or something like $4.68 million). If a team takes advantage of this bonus cushion, and the bonuses do get paid out, they will come out of the following season's cap. So, the practical upshot for the summer cap is that we don't have to worry about those bonuses.
With all that in mind, here are the seven players currently on two-way contracts with the Rangers and the Whale, that ever saw the roster this season. Any players who never saw the Ranger roster this season, due to the pro-rating, will not count at all against this summer's cap.
Derek Stepan - $875,000, 2 yr. Played the entire season, putting his summer cap hit at $875,000.
Michael Del Zotto - $875,000 salary plus $212,500 in bonuses, 1 yr. Looks like he played something like 63% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $555,107.
Mats Zuccarello - $900,000 salary plus $850,000 in bonuses, 1 yr. Looks like he played something like 54% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $483,871.
Ryan McDonagh - $875,000 salary plus $425,000 in bonuses, 2 yr. Looks like he played something like 53% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $461,021.
Kris Newbury - $512,500, 1 yr. Looks like he played something like 18% of the season, putting his summer cap hit around $93,683.
Evgeny Grachev - $654,166 salary plus $162,500 in bonuses, 2 yr. On the roster for like 9% of the season, for a summer cap hit of $56,272.
Cam Talbot - $690,000 salary plus $210,000 in bonuses, 1 yr. Was on the roster for something like half a percent of the season, giving him a summer cap hit of like $3710
So, if I understand things correctly, that ties up an additional $2,528,664, for a total of $47,716,164 already tied up under the summer cap. Assuming a figure of $62.4 million, and therefore a summer cap of $68.64 million, that leaves us $20,923,836 to work with. Not a ton, given all the names you'll note absent from the above lists, and therefore necessarily on the free agency lists (more on those later). Especially if we wanna, like, sign someone like Brad Richards?
What recourse do we have? Well, for the summer cap, it's pretty much retirement, buyouts, and trades. None of the above-mentioned contracts are special 35+ contracts, so we won't still be on the hook for any players who retire or play in the AHL, but as we know, demotion to the AHL doesn't help with the summer cap. Trades, obviously, would completely remove anyone's cap hit, as would that player's retirement. Other than that, if we're really desperate for cap space, we could always buy out someone's contract. But a buyout imposes an (admittedly lessened) cap penalty in next and future seasons, stretching out for twice the length of the remaining contract (according to a formula you don't care about right now). So, buyouts are almost always a bad idea.
So, there we are, with our current contracts. Up next: free agents.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Good Season
Not a ton to say. Well, a ton to say, but not a ton to say that everyone else hasn't already said. Game 5 went the way it was supposed to, it was Game 4 that didn't. The series went the way we expected it to, it just didn't do so in exactly the way we expected it to. Did that make sense? We expected to lose the series, but no one could have predicted the way it happened. Like Game 5 in the series against Buffalo the second year after the lockout, Game 4 last week will stick in our memories as Ranger fans for a long time.
The Caps are the real deal this season, to be sure. On that note, Garden Faithful, while booing Boudreau was great and deserved, and "Can You Hear Us??" was the best Garden chant I've heard since my father told me stories about "Buy a Porsche, Hextall," could we stop booing Ovechkin so much? He's kinda great at hockey, and there's really nothing wrong with being kinda great at hockey.
Here's the point. A quick look at our season exits since the lockout (1st round, 2nd round, 2nd round, 1st round, no playoffs, 1st round) would have you believe that we're stagnating. But we're not. It's obvious that what all the sportswriters are saying is at least a little true: we're finally building a team the right way. And unlike after all our previous 1st-round-exit-after-squeaking-into-the-playoffs-in-the-last-week-of-the-season-after-a-great-March-runs, after this one, you have to feel good about the team's chances in years to come.'
More specific analysis to come, as I break down exactly what our current contract situation is for context in off-season discussions (and also a quick note on why everyone keeps saying "Redden" again), but a couple of honorable mentions should go out right now, to Ruslan Fedotenko and Marian Gaborik.
Feds, after a thoroughly mediocre season in which I often referred to him as the "marginal" or "average replacement" hockey player, shifted into a whole new gear for the playoffs. I don't know if he hit the "it's the Second Season and I'm a veteran" button or the "oh crap, my contract is up in as few as four games, I'd better start earning a new one" button, but all of a sudden he was everywhere, taking bodies, carrying the puck, and doing all the things you want your hockey players to do when they play the hockey. If he can be that guy all season, I want him back a lot.
Gabby, as I've said before, is the undeserving victim of a lot of Garden ire. It's hard to blame fans: we're very used to getting burned like this. We hire some guy who's supposed to be a scoring superstar, we pay him lots of money, he shows up, and he doesn't score all the goals we expect him to. Booooooo, run him out of town. In the past (Bobby Holik, Eric Lindros, Theoren Fleury, Petr Nedved, I don't have to keep going, right?), that's been the right reaction. But Gaborik is the real deal, and he has continued to show it this season as well.
He's not a washed-up veteran - he's a 29-year-old in the prime of his career, and he remains one of the fastest skaters in the league. He came from the Wild, where Jacques Lemaire stifled all offense, to New York, where he was excited to play in a "safe is death" environment. In the first season of his 5-season deal with us, he put up 42 goals and 44 assists. As Tortorella transitioned us into a "defense-first, and the offense will come," Gaborik's production understandably dropped. However, despite the new environment, despite being saddled with a rotating cast of linemates that never settled down, even in the playoffs, and despite being out with injuries for almost a quarter of the season, he still netted 22 goals and 26 assists, good for second among Rangers (6 points behind Brandon Dubinsky, who played 15 more games, had an extra 2:08 per game, and finished with 100 penalty minutes to Gaborik's 18 and as a -2 to Gaborik's +8).
What's that? Gaborik finished the season +8? Despite being acquired exclusively for his speed, and on a club where the coach preaches defensive responsibility first? Yes, he is talented enough to totally change his game style to fit his coach's demands, be really good at it, and still put up very good numbers. His +8 ties him with Derek Stepan and puts him 1 behind Ruslan Fedotenko's +9, putting Gaborik second among all Ranger forwards.
Anyway, this post wasn't supposed to The Case For Gaborik, this is just some stuff that is true that you should know. The point was that as Ranger fans we have a lot of reasons to be very excited about seasons to come. I'll be getting into our specific contracts soon.
Meanwhile, there's a lot of hockey left to watch. As for predictions: in the East, I expected Buffalo to pull it out last night. Now they didn't, Pronger's back, and they're going back to Philly for Game 7. If Buffalo wins that game, the series is Caps-Sabres, and the Sabres are screwed. Meanwhile, even if Tampa pulls out Game 6 tonight, there's no way they come back to Pittsburgh and win a Game 7. As for Boston-Montréal, it could still go either way, but I imagine Pittsburgh beating either victor. If Philly beats Buffalo tomorrow (assuming I'm right about Pens-Bolts), we get either Caps-Habs and Flyers-Pens or Caps-Pens and Flyers-Bruins. If it's the former, I figure Pittsburgh and Washington both win. So, in conclusion, the only way the Eastern Conference Finals don't come down to Caps vs Pens is if they meet in the semis because the Flyers and Bruins both win their series. Winner: HBO.
In the West, I really will be pulling for the thoroughly likeable defending Cup champion Blackhawks to win Game 7 in Vancouver tomorrow, pulling off the unthinkable upset of the President-Trophy-winners-by-a-mile after going down 3-0 in the series, but I just can't imagine it happening. Vancouver's really good. Either way, it's a defining moment for some hockey team. Watch this game tomorrow night. That leaves Sharks-Kings as the only question. Could still go either way. If the Sharks win, we get Canucks-Preds and Wings-Sharks, which I think gives us Canucks-Wings in the conference finals. If the Kings win, we get Canucks-Kings and Wings-Preds, which... again probably gives us Canucks-Wings. Winner: hockey fans.
The point is: there are a lot of really good hockey teams left in the playoffs this year, in both conferences. So, go watch a lot of hockey.
The Caps are the real deal this season, to be sure. On that note, Garden Faithful, while booing Boudreau was great and deserved, and "Can You Hear Us??" was the best Garden chant I've heard since my father told me stories about "Buy a Porsche, Hextall," could we stop booing Ovechkin so much? He's kinda great at hockey, and there's really nothing wrong with being kinda great at hockey.
Here's the point. A quick look at our season exits since the lockout (1st round, 2nd round, 2nd round, 1st round, no playoffs, 1st round) would have you believe that we're stagnating. But we're not. It's obvious that what all the sportswriters are saying is at least a little true: we're finally building a team the right way. And unlike after all our previous 1st-round-exit-after-squeaking-into-the-playoffs-in-the-last-week-of-the-season-after-a-great-March-runs, after this one, you have to feel good about the team's chances in years to come.'
More specific analysis to come, as I break down exactly what our current contract situation is for context in off-season discussions (and also a quick note on why everyone keeps saying "Redden" again), but a couple of honorable mentions should go out right now, to Ruslan Fedotenko and Marian Gaborik.
Feds, after a thoroughly mediocre season in which I often referred to him as the "marginal" or "average replacement" hockey player, shifted into a whole new gear for the playoffs. I don't know if he hit the "it's the Second Season and I'm a veteran" button or the "oh crap, my contract is up in as few as four games, I'd better start earning a new one" button, but all of a sudden he was everywhere, taking bodies, carrying the puck, and doing all the things you want your hockey players to do when they play the hockey. If he can be that guy all season, I want him back a lot.
Gabby, as I've said before, is the undeserving victim of a lot of Garden ire. It's hard to blame fans: we're very used to getting burned like this. We hire some guy who's supposed to be a scoring superstar, we pay him lots of money, he shows up, and he doesn't score all the goals we expect him to. Booooooo, run him out of town. In the past (Bobby Holik, Eric Lindros, Theoren Fleury, Petr Nedved, I don't have to keep going, right?), that's been the right reaction. But Gaborik is the real deal, and he has continued to show it this season as well.
He's not a washed-up veteran - he's a 29-year-old in the prime of his career, and he remains one of the fastest skaters in the league. He came from the Wild, where Jacques Lemaire stifled all offense, to New York, where he was excited to play in a "safe is death" environment. In the first season of his 5-season deal with us, he put up 42 goals and 44 assists. As Tortorella transitioned us into a "defense-first, and the offense will come," Gaborik's production understandably dropped. However, despite the new environment, despite being saddled with a rotating cast of linemates that never settled down, even in the playoffs, and despite being out with injuries for almost a quarter of the season, he still netted 22 goals and 26 assists, good for second among Rangers (6 points behind Brandon Dubinsky, who played 15 more games, had an extra 2:08 per game, and finished with 100 penalty minutes to Gaborik's 18 and as a -2 to Gaborik's +8).
What's that? Gaborik finished the season +8? Despite being acquired exclusively for his speed, and on a club where the coach preaches defensive responsibility first? Yes, he is talented enough to totally change his game style to fit his coach's demands, be really good at it, and still put up very good numbers. His +8 ties him with Derek Stepan and puts him 1 behind Ruslan Fedotenko's +9, putting Gaborik second among all Ranger forwards.
Anyway, this post wasn't supposed to The Case For Gaborik, this is just some stuff that is true that you should know. The point was that as Ranger fans we have a lot of reasons to be very excited about seasons to come. I'll be getting into our specific contracts soon.
Meanwhile, there's a lot of hockey left to watch. As for predictions: in the East, I expected Buffalo to pull it out last night. Now they didn't, Pronger's back, and they're going back to Philly for Game 7. If Buffalo wins that game, the series is Caps-Sabres, and the Sabres are screwed. Meanwhile, even if Tampa pulls out Game 6 tonight, there's no way they come back to Pittsburgh and win a Game 7. As for Boston-Montréal, it could still go either way, but I imagine Pittsburgh beating either victor. If Philly beats Buffalo tomorrow (assuming I'm right about Pens-Bolts), we get either Caps-Habs and Flyers-Pens or Caps-Pens and Flyers-Bruins. If it's the former, I figure Pittsburgh and Washington both win. So, in conclusion, the only way the Eastern Conference Finals don't come down to Caps vs Pens is if they meet in the semis because the Flyers and Bruins both win their series. Winner: HBO.
In the West, I really will be pulling for the thoroughly likeable defending Cup champion Blackhawks to win Game 7 in Vancouver tomorrow, pulling off the unthinkable upset of the President-Trophy-winners-by-a-mile after going down 3-0 in the series, but I just can't imagine it happening. Vancouver's really good. Either way, it's a defining moment for some hockey team. Watch this game tomorrow night. That leaves Sharks-Kings as the only question. Could still go either way. If the Sharks win, we get Canucks-Preds and Wings-Sharks, which I think gives us Canucks-Wings in the conference finals. If the Kings win, we get Canucks-Kings and Wings-Preds, which... again probably gives us Canucks-Wings. Winner: hockey fans.
The point is: there are a lot of really good hockey teams left in the playoffs this year, in both conferences. So, go watch a lot of hockey.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Washington Leads 2-1
Here are seven assorted thoughts of mine about this series, as it currently stands (three games in, with the Caps taking the first two at home and the Rangers so far keeping serve as well).
1. I thought we played better in game two than we did in game one, despite being a lot less close to winning. In game one, we only played about 30 good minutes out of 80. In game two, more like 45 out of 60. Still not enough, since we gave up two goals in 5. But still, just a thought.
2. From the "right about everything" files, we take another quick look at Sean Avery's impact. In both games two and three, Avery reestablished himself as one of the only Rangers who consistently forechecks. Sure, he can't score goals, but right now, neither can anyone else. What he can do is create chances by pushing the puck deep and always skating quickly, even when the rest of his team is gliding around.
Even Torts seemed to finally be catching on, rewarding Sean with 10:22 of ice time in game 2 (more than Wolski or Drury, and within 45 seconds (1 shift) of Anisimov and Prust). But in game 3, Avery was just as effective despite being limited to 8:45. There's a part of me that says I should trust that decision, since we lost game 2 and won game 3, but watching these guys play, Avery deserves more time.
One more note on Avery: go read what this guy of Blue Line Station says about him. This is what I'm always saying: yes, he's a pest, but he's not a good, and he's really good at being a pest. The case this guy makes is for Sean Avery as the Ferris Bueller of hockey. I'm on board.
3. I need to lay off of Erik Christensen. Yeah, he's soft. A strong gust of wind will take him off his game. But at least he shoots, and he shoots well when he does. Anisimov and Wolski are just as soft, and they don't make up for it by having a powerful shot that they're willing to take, ever. Christensen is like the anti-Avery: he's soft, he doesn't take the body, he rarely forechecks, and he can't keep possession if you grimace at him hard enough; but, he has great hands. I think Avery and Christensen complement each other rather well, if the latter can keep his big mouth shut.
4. Speaking of people I need to lay off of, year-long mediocre presence Ruslan Fedotenko has shown me over the last three games that maybe having a veteran presence down the stretch is all it's cracked up to be. He has been consistently great, after a regular season of being passable. There's not a Ranger who has stepped up his game for the playoffs more than he has. Kudos to you, Ruslan Fedotenko, right now you do not stenko at all.
5. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but do we really have the only coach in all of professional sports who just doesn't believe in lines? Like, at all?
6. In case there was anyone out there whining about the calls, you're wrong. Yes, the Caps' tying goal in game one was on a play they could have stood to blow the whistle on. They didn't. To me, that only comes up again because in game three, there were a couple of times they did blow the whistle way sooner than that, in front of Neuvirth. Whatever. As for the no-goal in game 3, despite NBC's embarrassing inability to show us a useful replay, the refs made the right call. The official game clock (which is not the NBC clock, people) hit zero before the puck crossed the line. If anything, the Caps got hosed yesterday afternoon, by a number of calls against them that were questionable at best.
Note: this does not excuse Bruce Boudreau from running his big, fat mouth off. Ranger fans, go to game four. Start "Fuck Bruce Boudreau" chants. Loudly and often. Please, please, show this dingleberry (whose fan base, it's worth noting, materialized in 2006 composed mostly rich suits who are bored with the Wizards and have never heard of Peter Bondra) some reasons to really hate the Garden.
7. Speaking of things Ranger fans should stop complaining about, Marian Gaborik. He hasn't scored goals, this is true. But he has created far more scoring chances than most of his coworkers lately. Let's play a game, in which we draw comparisons to fan-favorite and awful-mustache-haver Brandon Dubinsky. Dubinsky has, up until scoring the very bizarre game-winner Sunday afternoon, been largely invisible this series. Meanwhile, Gaborik has had fans screaming "how did he not put that in?" a few times a game.
Oh my god you guys, if one forward is coming really, really close to scoring all the time, and another one is doing bupkus until he has a bizarre bounce go his way, don't run the first one out of town! Your hockey team will get worse if you do that!
Also, let's talk about defensive responsibility. Look. We're a club that wins by not allowing goals, rather than by scoring them, a club whose motto has become "play smart defense and the goals will come." Marian Gaborik may be the fastest skater in the NHL, and he's got a crazy-fast shot. He was brought to New York expecting a system of "safe is death," and he prospered under it last season. As we've become a more defensive club, Gabby has completely changed his game: blocking shots, back-checking, and generally being in the right place at the right time to stop a play from developing. Watch him over the last three games: other than Drury and Boyle, he's probably been our most defensively responsible forward!
So, Gabby's had among our best scoring chances of the series, though he hasn't put one in, and he's been among our most defensively responsible forwards, despite absolutely not being that kind of player. Remind me, again, why we're all getting on his case?
1. I thought we played better in game two than we did in game one, despite being a lot less close to winning. In game one, we only played about 30 good minutes out of 80. In game two, more like 45 out of 60. Still not enough, since we gave up two goals in 5. But still, just a thought.
2. From the "right about everything" files, we take another quick look at Sean Avery's impact. In both games two and three, Avery reestablished himself as one of the only Rangers who consistently forechecks. Sure, he can't score goals, but right now, neither can anyone else. What he can do is create chances by pushing the puck deep and always skating quickly, even when the rest of his team is gliding around.
Even Torts seemed to finally be catching on, rewarding Sean with 10:22 of ice time in game 2 (more than Wolski or Drury, and within 45 seconds (1 shift) of Anisimov and Prust). But in game 3, Avery was just as effective despite being limited to 8:45. There's a part of me that says I should trust that decision, since we lost game 2 and won game 3, but watching these guys play, Avery deserves more time.
One more note on Avery: go read what this guy of Blue Line Station says about him. This is what I'm always saying: yes, he's a pest, but he's not a good, and he's really good at being a pest. The case this guy makes is for Sean Avery as the Ferris Bueller of hockey. I'm on board.
3. I need to lay off of Erik Christensen. Yeah, he's soft. A strong gust of wind will take him off his game. But at least he shoots, and he shoots well when he does. Anisimov and Wolski are just as soft, and they don't make up for it by having a powerful shot that they're willing to take, ever. Christensen is like the anti-Avery: he's soft, he doesn't take the body, he rarely forechecks, and he can't keep possession if you grimace at him hard enough; but, he has great hands. I think Avery and Christensen complement each other rather well, if the latter can keep his big mouth shut.
4. Speaking of people I need to lay off of, year-long mediocre presence Ruslan Fedotenko has shown me over the last three games that maybe having a veteran presence down the stretch is all it's cracked up to be. He has been consistently great, after a regular season of being passable. There's not a Ranger who has stepped up his game for the playoffs more than he has. Kudos to you, Ruslan Fedotenko, right now you do not stenko at all.
5. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but do we really have the only coach in all of professional sports who just doesn't believe in lines? Like, at all?
6. In case there was anyone out there whining about the calls, you're wrong. Yes, the Caps' tying goal in game one was on a play they could have stood to blow the whistle on. They didn't. To me, that only comes up again because in game three, there were a couple of times they did blow the whistle way sooner than that, in front of Neuvirth. Whatever. As for the no-goal in game 3, despite NBC's embarrassing inability to show us a useful replay, the refs made the right call. The official game clock (which is not the NBC clock, people) hit zero before the puck crossed the line. If anything, the Caps got hosed yesterday afternoon, by a number of calls against them that were questionable at best.
Note: this does not excuse Bruce Boudreau from running his big, fat mouth off. Ranger fans, go to game four. Start "Fuck Bruce Boudreau" chants. Loudly and often. Please, please, show this dingleberry (whose fan base, it's worth noting, materialized in 2006 composed mostly rich suits who are bored with the Wizards and have never heard of Peter Bondra) some reasons to really hate the Garden.
7. Speaking of things Ranger fans should stop complaining about, Marian Gaborik. He hasn't scored goals, this is true. But he has created far more scoring chances than most of his coworkers lately. Let's play a game, in which we draw comparisons to fan-favorite and awful-mustache-haver Brandon Dubinsky. Dubinsky has, up until scoring the very bizarre game-winner Sunday afternoon, been largely invisible this series. Meanwhile, Gaborik has had fans screaming "how did he not put that in?" a few times a game.
Oh my god you guys, if one forward is coming really, really close to scoring all the time, and another one is doing bupkus until he has a bizarre bounce go his way, don't run the first one out of town! Your hockey team will get worse if you do that!
Also, let's talk about defensive responsibility. Look. We're a club that wins by not allowing goals, rather than by scoring them, a club whose motto has become "play smart defense and the goals will come." Marian Gaborik may be the fastest skater in the NHL, and he's got a crazy-fast shot. He was brought to New York expecting a system of "safe is death," and he prospered under it last season. As we've become a more defensive club, Gabby has completely changed his game: blocking shots, back-checking, and generally being in the right place at the right time to stop a play from developing. Watch him over the last three games: other than Drury and Boyle, he's probably been our most defensively responsible forward!
So, Gabby's had among our best scoring chances of the series, though he hasn't put one in, and he's been among our most defensively responsible forwards, despite absolutely not being that kind of player. Remind me, again, why we're all getting on his case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)