Thursday, May 16, 2013
Journamalism
Pierre LeBrun writes:
So, how does one get to be a sports writer? Excellent instincts for reporting coupled with an intimate knowledge of sports and great contacts with players, agents, league officials, and team front offices?
Or is it just people who have shitty grammar at J-school?
Seriously, I know there is immense social pressure to avoid the use of the modal verb "would" and a anxious fear of using the word "the" when you can sound more jocktackular and say "that." I know that all of the sports d00ds say things like "If I'm him, I don't dump in the zone, I use that skill and deke."
I'm not asking for correct use of the subjunctive or the swimming against the tidal wave of incorrect subject and object pronoun usage. I'm not asking for, "If I were he, I would not dump it into the zone; rather, I would use my skill and maneuver around the other player."
But I wonder why the normal colloquial "If I was him, I wouldn't dump it in the zone, I'd use my skill and deke" won't do. Is this some kind of quasi-police/military usage? What is it? Where does it come from?
But even if a player says that, why the fuck am I reading it from a journo?
Otherwise, I’m not sure this is even something the league looks at.
So, how does one get to be a sports writer? Excellent instincts for reporting coupled with an intimate knowledge of sports and great contacts with players, agents, league officials, and team front offices?
Or is it just people who have shitty grammar at J-school?
Seriously, I know there is immense social pressure to avoid the use of the modal verb "would" and a anxious fear of using the word "the" when you can sound more jocktackular and say "that." I know that all of the sports d00ds say things like "If I'm him, I don't dump in the zone, I use that skill and deke."
I'm not asking for correct use of the subjunctive or the swimming against the tidal wave of incorrect subject and object pronoun usage. I'm not asking for, "If I were he, I would not dump it into the zone; rather, I would use my skill and maneuver around the other player."
But I wonder why the normal colloquial "If I was him, I wouldn't dump it in the zone, I'd use my skill and deke" won't do. Is this some kind of quasi-police/military usage? What is it? Where does it come from?
But even if a player says that, why the fuck am I reading it from a journo?
Monday, May 13, 2013
Phoenix Fail Part 43
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9271905/nhl-rejects-darin-pastor-bid-buy-phoenix-coyotes
Another suitor rejected.
// posted by Rick @ 7:59 PM
E2
Toronto in 7. Toronto was a better regular season team than Washington was; don't be fooled by the barely earned 3 seed for winning over their shitty division. Toronto has home ice. They have come together as a team and beater a better team than the Rangers. Toronto's scoring line is heating up. It's a tough call, but I'm going with Toronto in 7. They seem to have destiny.
// posted by Rick @ 6:25 PM
Cordell From The "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" Files
Todd Cordell:
There are two pretty serious flaws with this. First, I know most people don't watch the pacific time zone teams. They think they do, but they don't. If you watched Duck games this year, you'd see Ryan disappearing for long stretches of the season, flopping around the ice, not finishing checks, and making generally lazy plays. Not exactly Lou material.
Second, the reason the Devils scoring was so low? Probably the extended injury of Ilya Kovalchuk. Cordell's not knowing that makes me wonder if he watches eastern time zone games either. With another 10 goals, the Devils might have made it into the playoffs on the basis of their decent start. It's always a soft target to accuse the Devils of not scoring, but in this case it's pretty obvious why. There aren't that many teams that can lose their top scoring forward and not suffer in that department.
Finally, even if Bobby Ryan really is a Devil and the Devils do really need more scoring, why would they dump the whole farm team a top pick in a deep draft and his salary to get him? It doesn't make sense especially at that price.
A steep price, indeed, but you don't get young perennial 30 goal scorers without giving up a lot. You have to give to get, they say.
Whether Ryan ends up a Devil or not, Devils GM, Lou Lamoriello, must make some calls and try to get his hands on Ryan. Lamoriello has said you look at every opportunity to improve your roster. Well, an opportunity is sitting right in front of you.
There are two pretty serious flaws with this. First, I know most people don't watch the pacific time zone teams. They think they do, but they don't. If you watched Duck games this year, you'd see Ryan disappearing for long stretches of the season, flopping around the ice, not finishing checks, and making generally lazy plays. Not exactly Lou material.
Second, the reason the Devils scoring was so low? Probably the extended injury of Ilya Kovalchuk. Cordell's not knowing that makes me wonder if he watches eastern time zone games either. With another 10 goals, the Devils might have made it into the playoffs on the basis of their decent start. It's always a soft target to accuse the Devils of not scoring, but in this case it's pretty obvious why. There aren't that many teams that can lose their top scoring forward and not suffer in that department.
Finally, even if Bobby Ryan really is a Devil and the Devils do really need more scoring, why would they dump the whole farm team a top pick in a deep draft and his salary to get him? It doesn't make sense especially at that price.
// posted by Rick @ 1:13 PM
Should the Ducks Fire Boudreau?
Just to be clear: I'm not asking this just because they lost game 7.
Because that loss was part of a larger pattern of Boudreau's style as a coach. Though he did win championships at the ECHL and AHL level, Boudreau's teams in the NHL have been marked with the same stamp: excellence in the regular season followed by underachievement in the playoffs.
In Boudreau's first season in Washington, he pushed his team into a Division championship, but they lost in the first round in 7 games to the Flyers. Sound familiar? OK, so perhaps just a coincidence. The next year, the Capitals challenged for the Presidents Trophy, won their division again and barely beat the low-seeded Rangers (again in 7) but lost (again in 7) to Pittsburgh in the second round.
Then what? Well, the next year they did win the Presidents Trophy. But they were unceremoniously dispatched by the Montreal Canadiens in the first round in a mere 7 games. The next year? Another division championship, another early exit. They were swept in the second round by the Tampa Bay Lightning.
After several years of playoff failure, when the regular season started to go wrong, the Capitals fired Boudreau. He was hired (literally) the same day by the Anaheim Ducks to replace Stanley Cup winning coach Randy Carlyle.
But what happened this lockout shortened season? The Ducks ran away with the Pacific Division and in the early part of the season, were challenging Chicago for the Presidents Trophy. Then they lost in 7 games to the #7 seed.
Is all of this a coincidence?
I don't think so. With about one quarter of the lockout shortened season left, the Ducks started to lose focus and they stopped winning. It started around the time Corey Perry was suspended, followed by an injury to Ryan Getzlaf, so it was easy to attribute to these causes. So while their Pacific Division championship was never much in doubt, it took them far longer to clinch it than it should have and by then they had fallen out of the hunt for the President's Trophy.
Boudreau preached a "calm down" and "don't get too high or too law" philosophy to his players. He rested players from the lineup before the division or the #2 seed was clinched. He did not make major changes to the lineup during the losing streak and the Ducks brought in a fourth-line faceoff man at the deadline and not much else.
This philosophy is great for regular season success. If you have a team that is good on paper, over time, they do tend to win games and do better if you're patient and let their talents bloom. There's also a strong argument to be made (made stronger, in fact, by Boudreau's losses as a higher seed) that getting into the playoffs is all that really matters and that once you're there, if you have the more rested team, you're bound to win.
The problem is, teams that coast into the playoffs don't fare very well. They have trouble getting into the playoff mindset and by the time they do, they are usually at a disadvantage in the series. The teams in the bottom few seeds have been pushing for a while either just to get in or jockeying for positioning. This can cost you. You can have injuries, but if you survive those, your team is set for success in the playoffs.
The Ducks were giving up goals in the first minutes of games, blowing leads, losing to teams that they should have mopped the floor with, and their scoring lines were not scoring towards the end of the season. Starting goalie Jonas Hiller had some bad games. Still, Boudreau went with Hiller and did not change goalies even after a 5-4 loss in game 2, to Viktor Fasth who played better than Hiller in the regular season.
So, on this evidence you have to wonder if Boudreau shouldn't be on his way out, or, if he has one more chance next year. A team that has won a Stanley Cup should want playoff success and a coach repeating his failure there shouldn't be given much slack, right?
Here's the thing, though. Ducks fans have gotten used to deep playoff runs in the last 10 years. Two visits to the finals, one Cup, three trips to the conference finals. But in order to have this kind of success, you first have to make the playoffs. The Ducks have not reliably done this over long periods of time. They had one 4 season streak form 2006-2009.
This is a team that needs some regular season success to build a playoff tradition that is solid enough to worry about transitioning from the regular season to the playoffs. Sure, sometimes the stars will align like they did in 2007 and you'll get two Norris trophy winning defensemen, a whole gang of high scoring rookies, and a goalie back at the top of his game. But if you don't, you need to build the base of your team into that kind of team to begin with.
Keep Boudreau if he can keep doing it in the regular season.
Because that loss was part of a larger pattern of Boudreau's style as a coach. Though he did win championships at the ECHL and AHL level, Boudreau's teams in the NHL have been marked with the same stamp: excellence in the regular season followed by underachievement in the playoffs.
In Boudreau's first season in Washington, he pushed his team into a Division championship, but they lost in the first round in 7 games to the Flyers. Sound familiar? OK, so perhaps just a coincidence. The next year, the Capitals challenged for the Presidents Trophy, won their division again and barely beat the low-seeded Rangers (again in 7) but lost (again in 7) to Pittsburgh in the second round.
Then what? Well, the next year they did win the Presidents Trophy. But they were unceremoniously dispatched by the Montreal Canadiens in the first round in a mere 7 games. The next year? Another division championship, another early exit. They were swept in the second round by the Tampa Bay Lightning.
After several years of playoff failure, when the regular season started to go wrong, the Capitals fired Boudreau. He was hired (literally) the same day by the Anaheim Ducks to replace Stanley Cup winning coach Randy Carlyle.
But what happened this lockout shortened season? The Ducks ran away with the Pacific Division and in the early part of the season, were challenging Chicago for the Presidents Trophy. Then they lost in 7 games to the #7 seed.
Is all of this a coincidence?
I don't think so. With about one quarter of the lockout shortened season left, the Ducks started to lose focus and they stopped winning. It started around the time Corey Perry was suspended, followed by an injury to Ryan Getzlaf, so it was easy to attribute to these causes. So while their Pacific Division championship was never much in doubt, it took them far longer to clinch it than it should have and by then they had fallen out of the hunt for the President's Trophy.
Boudreau preached a "calm down" and "don't get too high or too law" philosophy to his players. He rested players from the lineup before the division or the #2 seed was clinched. He did not make major changes to the lineup during the losing streak and the Ducks brought in a fourth-line faceoff man at the deadline and not much else.
This philosophy is great for regular season success. If you have a team that is good on paper, over time, they do tend to win games and do better if you're patient and let their talents bloom. There's also a strong argument to be made (made stronger, in fact, by Boudreau's losses as a higher seed) that getting into the playoffs is all that really matters and that once you're there, if you have the more rested team, you're bound to win.
The problem is, teams that coast into the playoffs don't fare very well. They have trouble getting into the playoff mindset and by the time they do, they are usually at a disadvantage in the series. The teams in the bottom few seeds have been pushing for a while either just to get in or jockeying for positioning. This can cost you. You can have injuries, but if you survive those, your team is set for success in the playoffs.
The Ducks were giving up goals in the first minutes of games, blowing leads, losing to teams that they should have mopped the floor with, and their scoring lines were not scoring towards the end of the season. Starting goalie Jonas Hiller had some bad games. Still, Boudreau went with Hiller and did not change goalies even after a 5-4 loss in game 2, to Viktor Fasth who played better than Hiller in the regular season.
So, on this evidence you have to wonder if Boudreau shouldn't be on his way out, or, if he has one more chance next year. A team that has won a Stanley Cup should want playoff success and a coach repeating his failure there shouldn't be given much slack, right?
Here's the thing, though. Ducks fans have gotten used to deep playoff runs in the last 10 years. Two visits to the finals, one Cup, three trips to the conference finals. But in order to have this kind of success, you first have to make the playoffs. The Ducks have not reliably done this over long periods of time. They had one 4 season streak form 2006-2009.
This is a team that needs some regular season success to build a playoff tradition that is solid enough to worry about transitioning from the regular season to the playoffs. Sure, sometimes the stars will align like they did in 2007 and you'll get two Norris trophy winning defensemen, a whole gang of high scoring rookies, and a goalie back at the top of his game. But if you don't, you need to build the base of your team into that kind of team to begin with.
Keep Boudreau if he can keep doing it in the regular season.
// posted by Rick @ 8:44 AM
Sunday, May 12, 2013
W2
(1) Chicago vs. (7) Detroit
Chicago in 6. Anaheim gave Detroit everything they could handle and would have eliminated them in a short series if they had been better in OT or if they had been able to play consistently. Chicago is not suffering from the numerous mental lapses that cost Anaheim the series, they are even deeper, and this could be a short series.
(5) Los Angeles vs. (6) San Jose
Los Angeles in 6. San Jose barely broke a sweat dispatching the feckless Canucks. The Kings, on the other hand, dug themselves out of a 2-0 hole to beat St. Louis. Los Angeles is a better team and one that knows how to win. They probably never imagined getting home ice in the second round, but it should be more than enough to put them back in the conference finals.
// posted by Rick @ 9:00 PM
Saturday, May 11, 2013
E2
(1) Pittsburgh vs. (7) Ottawa
Pittsburgh in 7. Ottawa was able to play their game against Montreal enough to beat them, but their lack of scoring will hurt them against Pittsburgh.
// posted by Rick @ 9:08 PM
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Overexpansion
For the entire duration of this blog, I have been writing about how if there is an ill with the NHL, it's attributable in major part to overexpansion. Personally, I very much enjoyed the hockey of the late 90s—the so-called "dead puck era." But the things that people didn't like in that era: goalies being competitive, low scoring, defensive systems, etc. I think are all attributable to there simply not being enough talent for teams to have 3 or 4 offensively skilled lines, so it makes sense to dedicate one line to defense and checking, and another one to hitting, dumping and chasing, and fighting.
Almost 10 years into the "New NHL" we don't have much more scoring, games aren't parades to the penalty box for looking mean at another player the way they were in 2005. We also don't have the sport being as popular as promised. Despite Cup victories to teams all over the map, in California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and back to traditional hockey markets like Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Boston, the NHL is not relatively more popular than it was in 2004.
It seems to me that either the whole "dead puck era" bamboozle was a management ploy to avenge the 1994-5 lockout and get the cap deal they wanted in 2004-5 combined with a hangover from the Gretzky era which drove so many new fans into the sport they didn't realize that 7-6 was not a normal hockey score before 1980.
But conspiracy theories aside, I just never cared. It was obvious to me that if you start with 22 teams with 22 players, you have about 500 of the most elite players in the world playing the game. If you have 30 teams, the number is closer to 700 (including a merry-go-round of minor league players, prospects, etc.) which is not only 40% more people, but it actually changes the way you form your lines, as I mentioned above. If you can only get 6 guys who can legitimately score, you gave the other 6 forwards something else to do—and, voila, you have checking taking up serious ice time.
But there's clearly another dimension to "overexpansion" as well that I noticed this year: there are too many games.
My increasingly vague memories of 1995 pre-date my obsession with hockey, when I was a more casual fan, but still a fan. At that point, I didn't have a team. At that time, as a suburban kid, I liked the teams that were from suburbs or that challenged the big city teams and remember enjoying the Devils series with the Rangers the year before (though I think I might have only watched the game with the Messier guarantee after seeing him make it on the news), enjoyed the idea of Orange County having a rivalry to the Kings, which were enjoying the last days of their bandwagon era, thought the Sharks had a cool logo even if they stank most of the time. In years past, I had watched a few Canadiens and Canucks games.
But those vague memories recall an exciting year and an unpredictable playoffs that led to the New Jersey Devils winning the Cup, confounding expectations and provoking a wave of criticism about their defensive system as being the root of all evil. This was total horse shit, of course, as the '95 Devils were one of the most exciting teams around and had been on the cusp of the finals the year before. Between Scott Stevens's devastating hits and Scott Niedermayer's silky smoov end-to-end scoring, they were exciting and would have been even if they played 0-1-4 like the German olympic team instead of 1-2-2.
What was great about that year, and about this year, was that the irrelevant games were simply cut off. How many times have the Phoenix Coyotes been out to a great lead in October and then either not made the playoffs or been blasted in the first round? How many players have scored 10 goals in the first few weeks only to finish with 15 for the year?
There was simply no time to wallow in a losing streak this year. Between the start of the season and when teams clinched, every game mattered to them, and it showed. Interestingly, there were also only a few major trades. Trades are fun because they hold out the hope that your team can be transformed into a champion by getting that special new player, but in reality, only one team can win the Cup, so most trades fail. It seems like a huge distraction and sort of odd that a team can play decently up until March, and then decide to augment its roster.
Anyway, it won't happen in a league that depends on ticket sales instead of TV contracts (still—this wasn't supposed to be the case in 2003, let alone 2013) but a 48-game season would rock.
25 teams playing 50 games a season would produce a much better product. Contract Florida, Columbus, Nashville, Phoenix, and the Islanders. Move Carolina to Hamilton. Move Anaheim to Seattle. Move Tampa to Quebec. Move Dallas to Vancouver. New York, Toronto, and Vancouver should be two team markets, and they probably should be the only ones.
Yeah, I know that's not going to happen. But the more the league moves in that direction, I think, the better it will be.
Also, stream every game in SD free. Charge $0.99 for HD. The first sport to do that will reap huge rewards.
// posted by Rick @ 8:09 AM
First Round Update
The Sharks swept Vancouver out of the playoffs, the Kings have roared back to take a 3-2 series lead and can take the series on home ice, Boston hasn't let Toronto keep it down, the Rangers have tied up their series, and Anaheim has two chance to end the Red Wings.
But clearly the biggest news is that Pittsburgh, which started the playoffs as Vegas's favorite to win the Cup, is tied in its series with the Islanders, and this is only the case because of a very lucky call they received in game 3's overtime. Otherwise, they could be down 3-1. The situation has risen to the level where they are changing out goalies.
Part of it is that the Islanders are better than people thought. Part of it is that the Penguins aren't playing as good as people thought. But mostly, it's just the playoffs. The 8 seed beats the 1 seed all the time. If the Islanders pull off the upset, Boston could be the only favorite to win in the first round, setting up a Boston/Islanders Otttawa/Rangers second round.
Out west, we're on the cusp of the first Anaheim/LA playoff series. The Blues and the Wings could both still win, but the other series will almost surely be San Jose versus Chicago.
But clearly the biggest news is that Pittsburgh, which started the playoffs as Vegas's favorite to win the Cup, is tied in its series with the Islanders, and this is only the case because of a very lucky call they received in game 3's overtime. Otherwise, they could be down 3-1. The situation has risen to the level where they are changing out goalies.
Part of it is that the Islanders are better than people thought. Part of it is that the Penguins aren't playing as good as people thought. But mostly, it's just the playoffs. The 8 seed beats the 1 seed all the time. If the Islanders pull off the upset, Boston could be the only favorite to win in the first round, setting up a Boston/Islanders Otttawa/Rangers second round.
Out west, we're on the cusp of the first Anaheim/LA playoff series. The Blues and the Wings could both still win, but the other series will almost surely be San Jose versus Chicago.
// posted by Rick @ 7:26 AM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Shark Weak Delayed
The playoff chokers' derby was won by the bigger choker, the Can'tnucks.
So, Shark Weak is delayed until next week in Chicago.
So, Shark Weak is delayed until next week in Chicago.
// posted by Rick @ 10:16 PM
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Ducks...
Mentally weak again--lucky to get out of the second period with the lead. They scored on the PP and seemed awfully pleased with themselves. Turnovers, purposeless plays...
...but it just ended up not mattering. Detroit came out dead in the third. Tired from the kill? Who knows. They stunk up their home ice.
...but it just ended up not mattering. Detroit came out dead in the third. Tired from the kill? Who knows. They stunk up their home ice.
// posted by Rick @ 6:17 PM
My Shitty Picks
So, admittedly, my prognostications aren't faring well. I did better back when I watched almost every game and knew every player and I didn't have as many settled ideas about what matters in the playoffs. But, I still think my prospective analysis was pretty good. Here's why I've been wrong (so far):
PIT in 4 isn't possible, but I still think Pittsburgh will win. I still like my Montreal in 6 pick.
NYR in 6 is still technically possible, but it seems vanishingly unlikely at this point. Washington is not playing like the team that almost didn't make the playoffs at the end of the regular season.
Toronto in 7 is still also technically possible and game 1 went about how I expected for 15 minutes. This team doesn't seem quite mentally ready to handle the playoffs and they have to play to their maximum potential to beat the Bruins. Reimer looks like he's been figured out with the high glove shot.
[Edit: After game 2 it seems I might have been on to something... back to T.O. for games 3 and 4.]
Chicago in 4, Detroit in 6, and San Jose in 7 are still on track and largely for the reasons I suggested. If I had been wrong about the Ducks, they would be up 2-0. They don't play hard and mentally tough until it's too late sometimes.
LA in 6? What happened was two-fold: the Blues really came to play but still have only barely beaten the Kings at home, but mental lapses by Conn Smythe 2012 winner Jonathan Quick have cost the Kings both games and now they're in a hole. They could turn it around and win in 6, but if home ice matters that much to them, they'll lost in 7. This series is closer than the media is making it sound, but obviously the Blues are in the driver's seat.
The Kings have to be somewhat frustrated in the knowledge that even if they can turn this series around, they seem mortal—whereas last year they went through every other team like crap through a goose. Not having that intimidation factor, whether or not its deserved, means that it will be that much harder for them to repeat or even defend.
PIT in 4 isn't possible, but I still think Pittsburgh will win. I still like my Montreal in 6 pick.
NYR in 6 is still technically possible, but it seems vanishingly unlikely at this point. Washington is not playing like the team that almost didn't make the playoffs at the end of the regular season.
Toronto in 7 is still also technically possible and game 1 went about how I expected for 15 minutes. This team doesn't seem quite mentally ready to handle the playoffs and they have to play to their maximum potential to beat the Bruins. Reimer looks like he's been figured out with the high glove shot.
[Edit: After game 2 it seems I might have been on to something... back to T.O. for games 3 and 4.]
Chicago in 4, Detroit in 6, and San Jose in 7 are still on track and largely for the reasons I suggested. If I had been wrong about the Ducks, they would be up 2-0. They don't play hard and mentally tough until it's too late sometimes.
LA in 6? What happened was two-fold: the Blues really came to play but still have only barely beaten the Kings at home, but mental lapses by Conn Smythe 2012 winner Jonathan Quick have cost the Kings both games and now they're in a hole. They could turn it around and win in 6, but if home ice matters that much to them, they'll lost in 7. This series is closer than the media is making it sound, but obviously the Blues are in the driver's seat.
The Kings have to be somewhat frustrated in the knowledge that even if they can turn this series around, they seem mortal—whereas last year they went through every other team like crap through a goose. Not having that intimidation factor, whether or not its deserved, means that it will be that much harder for them to repeat or even defend.
// posted by Rick @ 12:52 PM
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Boudreau Knew?
Sheldon Souray told the LA Times that Anaheim coach Bruce Boudreau planned on facing Detroit.
"Bruce is probably the only guy who thinks he knows how it's going to go," Souray said. "He told us two weeks ago we were probably going to play Detroit, by his calculations.
If that's true then we have a slightly different situation in this series. First, if Anaheim felt they were going to be the #2 seed two weeks ago, it would explain their less than urgent attitude over that time. Second, it should mean they are prepared to face the Wings on more than two days of scouting.
Vegas has the Ducks as a weak favorite. Going into the first round is tough for predictions because you haven't seen the playoff lineup, you haven't seen the goalie under playoff conditions, and a lot of other stuff doesn't matter. Going in on a down streak is a pretty good indicator and I've never seen much to convince me that it being intentional mattered.
// posted by Rick @ 2:40 PM
Sunday, April 28, 2013
E1
The Short Guide to the Stanley Cup Playoffs
Why Pittsburgh? Experience, scoring, and home ice.
Why Not Pittsburgh? Injuries, defense.
Why Boston? Experience, balanced roster.
Why Not Boston? One of the lower scoring teams in the playoffs.
Why Washington? Good finish to season.
Why Not Washington? Barely made the playoffs, despite division championship against weak division.
Why Montreal? Great +/-
Why Not Montreal? Questions in net.
Why Toronto? Energetic team buying into its coach.
Why Not Toronto? Inexperience, defense.
Why Rangers? Hot finish, weak first round opponent is opportunity for a good start.
Why Not Rangers? Poor road record.
Why Islanders? John Tavares.
Why Not Islanders? Terrible on defense.
Why Ottawa? Defense
Why Not Ottawa? Road record, poor scoring.
Why Chicago? Dominated season from start to finish, depth, experience, scoring, defense, goaltending.
Why Not Chicago? Losing record against Anaheim, not much else. They have to be the favorite to win the Cup.
Why Anaheim? Depth in every position, experience.
Why Not Anaheim? Special teams are terrible, horrible finish to the season, streaky play.
Why Vancouver? Experience
Why Not Vancouver? Terrible finish to season, goaltending controversy, weak division.
Why St. Louis? Good finish to season.
Why Not St. Louis? Inexperience
Why LA? Defending champions, finished well, playing well.
Why Not LA? They have to beat Chicago. Otherwise, they stand a great chance of defending and repeating.
Why San Jose? Weak first round opponent, decent finish to season.
Why Not San Jose? They are the blue balling Minnesota Vikings of the NHL.
Why Detroit? Excellent finish to season.
Why Not Detroit? Scoring, low +/-
Why Minnesota? Because we like to believe in miracles.
Why Not Minnesota? Only minus team in the finals, apparently failed to make anything out of their free agency splash, just lost a game 6-1 they needed to win.
Why Not Pittsburgh? Injuries, defense.
Why Boston? Experience, balanced roster.
Why Not Boston? One of the lower scoring teams in the playoffs.
Why Washington? Good finish to season.
Why Not Washington? Barely made the playoffs, despite division championship against weak division.
Why Montreal? Great +/-
Why Not Montreal? Questions in net.
Why Toronto? Energetic team buying into its coach.
Why Not Toronto? Inexperience, defense.
Why Rangers? Hot finish, weak first round opponent is opportunity for a good start.
Why Not Rangers? Poor road record.
Why Islanders? John Tavares.
Why Not Islanders? Terrible on defense.
Why Ottawa? Defense
Why Not Ottawa? Road record, poor scoring.
Why Chicago? Dominated season from start to finish, depth, experience, scoring, defense, goaltending.
Why Not Chicago? Losing record against Anaheim, not much else. They have to be the favorite to win the Cup.
Why Anaheim? Depth in every position, experience.
Why Not Anaheim? Special teams are terrible, horrible finish to the season, streaky play.
Why Vancouver? Experience
Why Not Vancouver? Terrible finish to season, goaltending controversy, weak division.
Why St. Louis? Good finish to season.
Why Not St. Louis? Inexperience
Why LA? Defending champions, finished well, playing well.
Why Not LA? They have to beat Chicago. Otherwise, they stand a great chance of defending and repeating.
Why San Jose? Weak first round opponent, decent finish to season.
Why Not San Jose? They are the blue balling Minnesota Vikings of the NHL.
Why Detroit? Excellent finish to season.
Why Not Detroit? Scoring, low +/-
Why Minnesota? Because we like to believe in miracles.
Why Not Minnesota? Only minus team in the finals, apparently failed to make anything out of their free agency splash, just lost a game 6-1 they needed to win.
// posted by Rick @ 11:56 AM
W1
Chicago in 4 - Dominating no. 1 versus iffy no. 8.
Detroit in 6 - Ducks limped their way in to the playoffs, Detroit roared.
San Jose in 7 - San Jose has been playing better than Van.
LA in 6 - LA has been back in form the last month or so.
Detroit in 6 - Ducks limped their way in to the playoffs, Detroit roared.
San Jose in 7 - San Jose has been playing better than Van.
LA in 6 - LA has been back in form the last month or so.
// posted by Rick @ 8:33 AM
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Phoenix Fail
Nobody could have predicted
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8898939/greg-jamison-main-suitor-phoenix-coyotes-produce-capital-purchase-team-according-sources
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8898939/greg-jamison-main-suitor-phoenix-coyotes-produce-capital-purchase-team-according-sources
// posted by Rick @ 5:07 PM
Sunday, January 6, 2013
So, you want your fans back?
This is a fairly simple proposition. When the game starts up in a few days again, make sure that the on-ice product appeals to the kind of fan that will still be tuning into NHL hockey and quit trying to chase the fair weather fans, at least for now.
You see, those folks are gone. Maybe permanently. It may take a new generation of growth in the game to create a halo effect sufficient to start thinking about whether a few more shots per game will be that much more attractive.
This lockout was clearly the owners' fault in that they simply wanted to get more of an expanding pie. There was no threat to the game. Revenue was at an all time high and the game was doing very well. They simply wanted to take more. You can argue they have the right to try—they do—but the players have the right to negotiate as well. The last lockout was the players simply failing to see the writing on the wall. Sure, that lockout and the financial emergency that spawned it was caused by over-expansion created by the league, but certainly not fought against by the players.
Larry Brooks, who was the only major writer to not only be pro-player, but whom no one else could seem to win any twitter arguments against at all, pointed out that in the pre-cap era, only one less team made it to the conference finals than in the post-cap era in roughly the same amount of time. Still, more teams made it to the Cup Final, and therefore there was an increase in parity. Still, his point remains: even when the money is available, nothing can stop teams with terrible management from making terrible decisions. Does anyone believe we are going to see the New York Islanders in the conference finals any time soon? It's not because they haven't drafted good players, either.
Anyway, this hardly means the NHL is off suicide watch. It just means that, for now anyway, we think we have the padding in the room soft enough and the straps on the staightjacket tight enough that we can play some solitaire while we wait.
You see, those folks are gone. Maybe permanently. It may take a new generation of growth in the game to create a halo effect sufficient to start thinking about whether a few more shots per game will be that much more attractive.
This lockout was clearly the owners' fault in that they simply wanted to get more of an expanding pie. There was no threat to the game. Revenue was at an all time high and the game was doing very well. They simply wanted to take more. You can argue they have the right to try—they do—but the players have the right to negotiate as well. The last lockout was the players simply failing to see the writing on the wall. Sure, that lockout and the financial emergency that spawned it was caused by over-expansion created by the league, but certainly not fought against by the players.
Larry Brooks, who was the only major writer to not only be pro-player, but whom no one else could seem to win any twitter arguments against at all, pointed out that in the pre-cap era, only one less team made it to the conference finals than in the post-cap era in roughly the same amount of time. Still, more teams made it to the Cup Final, and therefore there was an increase in parity. Still, his point remains: even when the money is available, nothing can stop teams with terrible management from making terrible decisions. Does anyone believe we are going to see the New York Islanders in the conference finals any time soon? It's not because they haven't drafted good players, either.
Anyway, this hardly means the NHL is off suicide watch. It just means that, for now anyway, we think we have the padding in the room soft enough and the straps on the staightjacket tight enough that we can play some solitaire while we wait.
// posted by Rick @ 8:43 AM
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The Next CBA
Scott Burnside, whom I have lightened up on somewhat, complains that the GMs can't be arguing that players should accept concessions like the ones they have proposed when one of them is making $110m offer sheets.
Either he is simply parroting NHLPA talking points, making a facile argument for fun, or he doesn't get it: they're doing it because they can under the current CBA and, more to the point, because they are programmed to win.
This is the same thing people argue when they ask why people who think taxes should be higher just don't volunteer to pay more right now. The answer is simple: because something has to be the rules. Usually, we rely on the law. So, people do the best they can under the current rules. For the current NHL, it's the current CBA.
But the reality has always been the same: there is no amount of concessions the players can give that will make a 30-team league permanently stable with only 7 teams in Canada and more than that number south of the Mason-Dixon line, even if most of those teams have won Stanley Cups.
In fact, it's the fact of the Dallas Stars, Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, Anaheim Ducks, and Los Angeles Kings winning the Cup and still not raising hockey's status nationwide that should the final nail in the Bettman expansions's coffin.
And the constant cycle of rule changes have apparently done nothing to end what various people call the "Dead Puck Era" (also known as "when the Red Wings and Flyers don't make it to the 3rd round"). How can this be? How can eliminating the position of goaltending from preeminence and do all kinds of things to supposedly enhance "skill" (i.e. scoring), which has had all kinds of unintended effects, such as increased concussions have possibly resulted in another "Dead Puck Era?"
The answer has been staring us in the face for 20 years. It is quite simple: this is the equilibrium of play in the league with the talent pool at its current depth as it is spread out over 30 teams. Reducing the league to 20-25 teams would instantly raise the level of play and put the puck on the stick of more talented players and reduce the need to rely on systems, all of which would get the goal they claim they want.
I say this not because I want that. I like the sport the way it is, the way it was in 1995, the way it was in 2000 and in 2005. I just don't want to hear a bunch of bullshit about rules and CBAs.
The owners' current proposal is not going to make hockey viable in Phoenix or Nashville.
Shea Weber did the right thing and the Flyers management did the right thing.
Either he is simply parroting NHLPA talking points, making a facile argument for fun, or he doesn't get it: they're doing it because they can under the current CBA and, more to the point, because they are programmed to win.
This is the same thing people argue when they ask why people who think taxes should be higher just don't volunteer to pay more right now. The answer is simple: because something has to be the rules. Usually, we rely on the law. So, people do the best they can under the current rules. For the current NHL, it's the current CBA.
But the reality has always been the same: there is no amount of concessions the players can give that will make a 30-team league permanently stable with only 7 teams in Canada and more than that number south of the Mason-Dixon line, even if most of those teams have won Stanley Cups.
In fact, it's the fact of the Dallas Stars, Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, Anaheim Ducks, and Los Angeles Kings winning the Cup and still not raising hockey's status nationwide that should the final nail in the Bettman expansions's coffin.
And the constant cycle of rule changes have apparently done nothing to end what various people call the "Dead Puck Era" (also known as "when the Red Wings and Flyers don't make it to the 3rd round"). How can this be? How can eliminating the position of goaltending from preeminence and do all kinds of things to supposedly enhance "skill" (i.e. scoring), which has had all kinds of unintended effects, such as increased concussions have possibly resulted in another "Dead Puck Era?"
The answer has been staring us in the face for 20 years. It is quite simple: this is the equilibrium of play in the league with the talent pool at its current depth as it is spread out over 30 teams. Reducing the league to 20-25 teams would instantly raise the level of play and put the puck on the stick of more talented players and reduce the need to rely on systems, all of which would get the goal they claim they want.
I say this not because I want that. I like the sport the way it is, the way it was in 1995, the way it was in 2000 and in 2005. I just don't want to hear a bunch of bullshit about rules and CBAs.
The owners' current proposal is not going to make hockey viable in Phoenix or Nashville.
Shea Weber did the right thing and the Flyers management did the right thing.
// posted by Rick @ 7:09 PM
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Devils in 7.
The buggy usually turns back into a pumpkin.
Recent Cinderella runs have been absolutely thrilling but also have usually fallen short.
In the last 15 years, there have been some amazing ones. I'm not convinced to this day that the 1999 Buffalo Sabres (#7 seed) should have lost, but they did. This was Dominik Hasek at his finest. In 2006, the Edmonton Oilers were defeated only by a stacked Carolina team that was itself something of a Cinderella in 2002. The two best are the 2010 Flyers and the 2003 Ducks. The Flyers only even made the playoffs on a shootout goal in the last game of the regular season and had to overcome a 0-3 deficit against the Bruins in the second round. The 2003 Ducks swept the then-champion Red Wings out of the playoffs, beat the Pacific division champ Dallas Stars and then limited the Minnesota Wild to one goal in a conference final sweep. The Ducks even survived a Scott Stevens check, with Paul Kariya coming back and scoring a dramatic goal.
The Ducks made it to game 7, but had to play it on the road in New Jersey and while they got the closest, their coach turned into a pumpkin as well.
The similarities between the 2003 Ducks and the 2012 Kings are eery. Both teams had 95 regular-season points. Both teams beat a 110+ point first round opponent and a 109+ point opponent in the second round. In the third round, both teams beat weaker opponents with 95 and 97 points. Both head into the finals with a 12-2 record.
This sounds like, on the one hand, these were two underrated teams that are showing total dominance. On the other hand, both are clearly fueled by a hot goalie, and dependent upon him for success. Neither the 2003 Ducks nor the 2012 Kings have any experience in the deeper rounds of the playoffs and neither are offensively dominant. Also, there is the simple fact that the Devils just faced their strongest opponent and the Kings just faced their weakest and the Kings have more time either to rest—or rust. And with goalies on a hot streak, rust is more likely.
The Devils are experienced as an organization. They have appeared in 1 of 4 of Stanley Cup Finals in the last 20 years. Martin Brodeur has won Stanley Cups and Gold Medals. He has diffused hot goalies like Jonathan Quick before (see: Giguere, J.S., Lundquist, Henrik, etc.)
Otherwise, the teams are very similar. Ilya Kovalchuck is a slightly better forward than Anze Kopitar, but Drew Doughty is slightly better than any Devils defenseman. Marek Zidlicky and Slava Voynov's strengths and weaknesses even out. Zajac and Parise can go toe-to-toe with Richards and Carter. There is a slight edge strength wise for the Kings with Penner, but Zubrus is more skilled and not weak there either.
But unless it's a Cinderella effect of its own, the Devils are simply deeper upfront. Any continued production of tying or go ahead goals from the 4th line by them will give the Devils an edge. A similar thing occurs on D. While the Kings best defenseman are marginally better, their depth defenseman are worse. Lacking a home-ice advantage, those pairings will see a lot of Kovalchuk (probably Voynov, Martinez, and Matt Greene).
Having a slightly better set of top forwards and defensemen would create a good advantage if the Kings used it on the power play, but they have not been strong there.
So, even though Jonathan Quick has been playing better, I'm not sure he's playing so much better than Marty that it makes up for the psychological and experiential difference, which is likely quite fragile given the hot-knife-through-butter-like experience of the Kings in the playoffs.
I have always wanted to see a team headed to the finals win a game 7. Win a couple of games coming from behind and win games either at home or on the road depending on where the disadvantage is. (Road wins are only much better if you're playing more games on the road). And winning some in OT is great too. Coming from behind in a series is also a hallmark of a team with the psychological determination necessary to get all the way without relying on always dominating. The Kings have only done this a little bit. The Devils have done all of these things this time around.
So, even though the Kings are apparently the favorite, I think there are a lot of "intangibles" that should make this at least a close series, but the "pumpkin" factor, to me, gives the slight advantage to New Jersey.
Devils in 7.
Recent Cinderella runs have been absolutely thrilling but also have usually fallen short.
In the last 15 years, there have been some amazing ones. I'm not convinced to this day that the 1999 Buffalo Sabres (#7 seed) should have lost, but they did. This was Dominik Hasek at his finest. In 2006, the Edmonton Oilers were defeated only by a stacked Carolina team that was itself something of a Cinderella in 2002. The two best are the 2010 Flyers and the 2003 Ducks. The Flyers only even made the playoffs on a shootout goal in the last game of the regular season and had to overcome a 0-3 deficit against the Bruins in the second round. The 2003 Ducks swept the then-champion Red Wings out of the playoffs, beat the Pacific division champ Dallas Stars and then limited the Minnesota Wild to one goal in a conference final sweep. The Ducks even survived a Scott Stevens check, with Paul Kariya coming back and scoring a dramatic goal.
The Ducks made it to game 7, but had to play it on the road in New Jersey and while they got the closest, their coach turned into a pumpkin as well.
The similarities between the 2003 Ducks and the 2012 Kings are eery. Both teams had 95 regular-season points. Both teams beat a 110+ point first round opponent and a 109+ point opponent in the second round. In the third round, both teams beat weaker opponents with 95 and 97 points. Both head into the finals with a 12-2 record.
This sounds like, on the one hand, these were two underrated teams that are showing total dominance. On the other hand, both are clearly fueled by a hot goalie, and dependent upon him for success. Neither the 2003 Ducks nor the 2012 Kings have any experience in the deeper rounds of the playoffs and neither are offensively dominant. Also, there is the simple fact that the Devils just faced their strongest opponent and the Kings just faced their weakest and the Kings have more time either to rest—or rust. And with goalies on a hot streak, rust is more likely.
The Devils are experienced as an organization. They have appeared in 1 of 4 of Stanley Cup Finals in the last 20 years. Martin Brodeur has won Stanley Cups and Gold Medals. He has diffused hot goalies like Jonathan Quick before (see: Giguere, J.S., Lundquist, Henrik, etc.)
Otherwise, the teams are very similar. Ilya Kovalchuck is a slightly better forward than Anze Kopitar, but Drew Doughty is slightly better than any Devils defenseman. Marek Zidlicky and Slava Voynov's strengths and weaknesses even out. Zajac and Parise can go toe-to-toe with Richards and Carter. There is a slight edge strength wise for the Kings with Penner, but Zubrus is more skilled and not weak there either.
But unless it's a Cinderella effect of its own, the Devils are simply deeper upfront. Any continued production of tying or go ahead goals from the 4th line by them will give the Devils an edge. A similar thing occurs on D. While the Kings best defenseman are marginally better, their depth defenseman are worse. Lacking a home-ice advantage, those pairings will see a lot of Kovalchuk (probably Voynov, Martinez, and Matt Greene).
Having a slightly better set of top forwards and defensemen would create a good advantage if the Kings used it on the power play, but they have not been strong there.
So, even though Jonathan Quick has been playing better, I'm not sure he's playing so much better than Marty that it makes up for the psychological and experiential difference, which is likely quite fragile given the hot-knife-through-butter-like experience of the Kings in the playoffs.
I have always wanted to see a team headed to the finals win a game 7. Win a couple of games coming from behind and win games either at home or on the road depending on where the disadvantage is. (Road wins are only much better if you're playing more games on the road). And winning some in OT is great too. Coming from behind in a series is also a hallmark of a team with the psychological determination necessary to get all the way without relying on always dominating. The Kings have only done this a little bit. The Devils have done all of these things this time around.
So, even though the Kings are apparently the favorite, I think there are a lot of "intangibles" that should make this at least a close series, but the "pumpkin" factor, to me, gives the slight advantage to New Jersey.
Devils in 7.
// posted by Rick @ 11:36 AM
Thursday, May 24, 2012
#1 Market Vs. #2 Market
No matter what happens in the Eastern Conference Final, a team from the New York TV market and the LA Kings will be playing each other for the Stanley Cup. That pits the top media market in the country against the #2 market. This happened previously in 2003.
In 2010, #3 Chicago faced #4 Philadelphia. Last year, it was #5 Boston versus the #3 Canadian market, Vancouver. Pittsburgh is only #23 but Detroit is #11. In 2007, the LA market was in the finals as well.
Anyway, this should be a perfect experimental test of the entire theory that the "New NHL" is built upon. The salary cap was supposed to bring parity between rich teams and poor, the rule changes were supposed to make the game more appealing. In addition to these changes, the most favorable circumstances have presented themselves, with teams from the expansion areas either winning or competing deep into the playoffs for the Stanley Cup. (Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim, Dallas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Jose have all made trips to the conference finals recently.) In addition, big market teams, ostensibly with a lot of exposure have done well also.
And, if that isn't good enough for you, American teams with large old school fan bases, like Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, and Detroit have all been very successful recently.
Given the circumstances, the league should be firing on all cylinders. Revenue should be skyrocketing. The economy can be factored in, but player salaries are comparable to 15 years ago even though ticket prices are not.
How can it possibly be, then, that this is not the case?
My hypothesis—which stands ready to be confirmed or falsified in the next few years—is, and always has been, that the "build it and they will come" philosophy is too simplistic and has (and will) continue to fail. It's not just Atlanta. Atlanta was never a good team. Even traditional hockey markets have failed to become sustainably profitable and competitive.
Part II of my hypothesis is that overexpansion and talent-pool dilution, and not the scapegoats of defensive systems, equipment, and the position of the lines on the ice are responsible for the subjective reduction in the quality of play. (I never thought it got worse, personally.)
The NHL should have expanded; don't get me wrong. Hockey is the most exciting sport on earth. The combination of skills and speed and danger combine for a sport unlike any other. Yet a more incremental approach would have been wiser.
Perhaps one day a team in Atlanta will succeed, but that would only come to pass by making hockey a national sport, slowly. Incrementally growing the territory while not underserving the source of most of the players (i.e. Canada, Minnesota, etc.) would have been the way to go. By now maybe we would be at 30 teams; maybe not.
If the league can't get where it is under these circumstances (and we'll hear them cry poor during the upcoming contract negotiations) then it's their plan that's flawed.
In 2010, #3 Chicago faced #4 Philadelphia. Last year, it was #5 Boston versus the #3 Canadian market, Vancouver. Pittsburgh is only #23 but Detroit is #11. In 2007, the LA market was in the finals as well.
Anyway, this should be a perfect experimental test of the entire theory that the "New NHL" is built upon. The salary cap was supposed to bring parity between rich teams and poor, the rule changes were supposed to make the game more appealing. In addition to these changes, the most favorable circumstances have presented themselves, with teams from the expansion areas either winning or competing deep into the playoffs for the Stanley Cup. (Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim, Dallas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Jose have all made trips to the conference finals recently.) In addition, big market teams, ostensibly with a lot of exposure have done well also.
And, if that isn't good enough for you, American teams with large old school fan bases, like Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, and Detroit have all been very successful recently.
Given the circumstances, the league should be firing on all cylinders. Revenue should be skyrocketing. The economy can be factored in, but player salaries are comparable to 15 years ago even though ticket prices are not.
How can it possibly be, then, that this is not the case?
My hypothesis—which stands ready to be confirmed or falsified in the next few years—is, and always has been, that the "build it and they will come" philosophy is too simplistic and has (and will) continue to fail. It's not just Atlanta. Atlanta was never a good team. Even traditional hockey markets have failed to become sustainably profitable and competitive.
Part II of my hypothesis is that overexpansion and talent-pool dilution, and not the scapegoats of defensive systems, equipment, and the position of the lines on the ice are responsible for the subjective reduction in the quality of play. (I never thought it got worse, personally.)
The NHL should have expanded; don't get me wrong. Hockey is the most exciting sport on earth. The combination of skills and speed and danger combine for a sport unlike any other. Yet a more incremental approach would have been wiser.
Perhaps one day a team in Atlanta will succeed, but that would only come to pass by making hockey a national sport, slowly. Incrementally growing the territory while not underserving the source of most of the players (i.e. Canada, Minnesota, etc.) would have been the way to go. By now maybe we would be at 30 teams; maybe not.
If the league can't get where it is under these circumstances (and we'll hear them cry poor during the upcoming contract negotiations) then it's their plan that's flawed.
// posted by Rick @ 12:36 PM
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Yotes Whine Pathetically
For a team that was nearly swept out of a series, the Coyotes sure seemed to focus a lot on one play that only cost them because they were too busy whining about it.
Read this.
What struck me as so hilarious about this article is that all through the game, Darren Pang, who is a Coyotes homer announcer during the regular season, was making comments about Coyotes players flopping and diving.
But here's what really happened: the alleged knee incident happened. The Coyotes freaked out. They lost their focus and got scored on on the next shift when the injured player wouldn't have been out there anyway.
It's not as if they were worn down by being down 1 D man for shift after shift and lost in game 7. They were never going to come back in this series and it was their thuggery and cheap play earlier in the series that made it that way.
And that's all assuming you don't believe there's anything wrong with a team owned and controlled by the NHL playing in the finals.
Read this.
What struck me as so hilarious about this article is that all through the game, Darren Pang, who is a Coyotes homer announcer during the regular season, was making comments about Coyotes players flopping and diving.
But here's what really happened: the alleged knee incident happened. The Coyotes freaked out. They lost their focus and got scored on on the next shift when the injured player wouldn't have been out there anyway.
It's not as if they were worn down by being down 1 D man for shift after shift and lost in game 7. They were never going to come back in this series and it was their thuggery and cheap play earlier in the series that made it that way.
And that's all assuming you don't believe there's anything wrong with a team owned and controlled by the NHL playing in the finals.
// posted by Rick @ 7:15 AM
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
I know nothing
Embarrassing year for my picks, but it's already a great year for the Devils.
Third Round: Kings in 5.
What happens when a hot goalie meets an equally hot goalie? The better team wins.
Third Round: Kings in 5.
What happens when a hot goalie meets an equally hot goalie? The better team wins.
// posted by Rick @ 10:52 AM
Friday, May 4, 2012
Round 2
I really just made terrible, credibility destroying predictions on this round, didn't I? The Blues are toast, the Kings are good. The Nashville series isn't over yet. Out east, the Rangers are leading because of a 3OT goal and the Devils are only not up 3-0 because of an overtime loss.
I would love to see 40 year old Martin Brodeur beat the Rangers in the conference final which would sort of redeem the primal Devils trauma of Matteau Matteau Matteau. Winning the Cup would close the case on whether he or Patrick Roy is the best goalie of all time in Brodeur's favor.
I guess Vancouver has to be rethinking how horrible they were when the other Presidents Cup contender is getting the same ass kicking they got. The Kings are interesting.
I would love to see 40 year old Martin Brodeur beat the Rangers in the conference final which would sort of redeem the primal Devils trauma of Matteau Matteau Matteau. Winning the Cup would close the case on whether he or Patrick Roy is the best goalie of all time in Brodeur's favor.
I guess Vancouver has to be rethinking how horrible they were when the other Presidents Cup contender is getting the same ass kicking they got. The Kings are interesting.
// posted by Rick @ 11:30 AM
Sunday, April 29, 2012
What Happened Canada?
What happened, they ask?
In short: a niche and regional sport got drunk on the national attention brought to it by Wayne Gretzky and overexpanded in markets that couldn't or wouldn't reliably support quality franchises and robbed Canada of teams in the process. The result was a diluted talent pool that the Ahabs leading this quest thought they could replace with imports from Europe.
Twenty years of rule changes, management-friendly labor deals, ticket price increases, and taxpayer subsidized arena deals haven't improved the quality of play and certainly hasn't boosted hockey above the #4 sport (which it is if you're only counting white men in the U.S. and Canada and college football and the NFL are one sport and you agree with me that NASCAR is not a sport).
Stanley Cup winning teams in Denver, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, and Carolina have failed to really ignite the sport nationwide. It has failed to produce the giant television contract that was supposed to do so much of the work here. My god, this is the first year all of the first- and second-round games have been nationally televised! (If you countOLN Versus "NBC Sports" as national.)
This is the equivalent of closing down a bunch of oil wells in Saudi Arabia and moving them to the middle of the Atlantic. Why? Because hockey players come from Canada. You cannot have hockey without hockey players. And while the major juniors and other minor leagues are extremely popular in Canada, fondness for the sport alone cannot develop the kind of talent needed to produce the kind of quality game that people want.
There are a few successes. The long-term presence of hockey in Southern California has produced a number of recent NHL players, including first-round draft choices from the area. But can a kid born and bred in Raleigh ever face the competition level required to hone him into an elite player without moving?
It's 2012. The gig is up. This 20 year experiment can't be blamed on free agent salaries, the neutral zone trap, or goalie equipment any more.
Move the Coyotes to Quebec, this summer. Move the Islanders to the Greater Toronto Area next year. (If Greater New York can support 3 teams, I bet Toronto could support 4.) Move Columbus to the GTA as well—or Vancouver or Western Ontario. Ten teams. There should be no fewer than 10 Canadian teams in the NHL.
An even better option? Do that and close 5 other teams.
In short: a niche and regional sport got drunk on the national attention brought to it by Wayne Gretzky and overexpanded in markets that couldn't or wouldn't reliably support quality franchises and robbed Canada of teams in the process. The result was a diluted talent pool that the Ahabs leading this quest thought they could replace with imports from Europe.
Twenty years of rule changes, management-friendly labor deals, ticket price increases, and taxpayer subsidized arena deals haven't improved the quality of play and certainly hasn't boosted hockey above the #4 sport (which it is if you're only counting white men in the U.S. and Canada and college football and the NFL are one sport and you agree with me that NASCAR is not a sport).
Stanley Cup winning teams in Denver, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, and Carolina have failed to really ignite the sport nationwide. It has failed to produce the giant television contract that was supposed to do so much of the work here. My god, this is the first year all of the first- and second-round games have been nationally televised! (If you count
This is the equivalent of closing down a bunch of oil wells in Saudi Arabia and moving them to the middle of the Atlantic. Why? Because hockey players come from Canada. You cannot have hockey without hockey players. And while the major juniors and other minor leagues are extremely popular in Canada, fondness for the sport alone cannot develop the kind of talent needed to produce the kind of quality game that people want.
There are a few successes. The long-term presence of hockey in Southern California has produced a number of recent NHL players, including first-round draft choices from the area. But can a kid born and bred in Raleigh ever face the competition level required to hone him into an elite player without moving?
It's 2012. The gig is up. This 20 year experiment can't be blamed on free agent salaries, the neutral zone trap, or goalie equipment any more.
Move the Coyotes to Quebec, this summer. Move the Islanders to the Greater Toronto Area next year. (If Greater New York can support 3 teams, I bet Toronto could support 4.) Move Columbus to the GTA as well—or Vancouver or Western Ontario. Ten teams. There should be no fewer than 10 Canadian teams in the NHL.
An even better option? Do that and close 5 other teams.
// posted by Rick @ 6:00 PM
Friday, April 27, 2012
Round 2
After going a Maggie The Monkeyish 4 for 8 in the first round (wtf Vancouver, Boston—I can live with getting Pittsburgh and Chicago wrong), I think I'm ready to make some better picks in the second round.
St. Louis vs. Los Angeles
No team looked better to me in the first round than the Blues. Every skater was always in the right place and their goaltending looked great. They made the Sharks look bad. You might wonder about their lack of experience, but the Kings don't have any either. St. Louis in 7—and I expect the Blues to at least go to the finals, and I'd say they're my favorite to win the Cup right now.
Phoenix vs. Nashville
Nashville has the defense and the goaltending. Is this their year? Maybe. They need to do this quickly to be convincing too. Phoenix should not have beat Chicago. Nashville in 5.
New York vs. Washington
Holtby is doing something of the "hot goalie" thing, but it doesn't look like the cheap coaching trick of making reducing Ovechkin's minutes to get him to do something is working out all the great. Remember when the big stars scored in the post-season too? You know, in the "dead puck era?" Yzerman, Sakic, Lemieux, Gretzky, Niedermayer, Jagr, Hull?
As much as I hate the Rangers, they have mitigated a lot of what I hated about them by actually, you know, building a team instead of poaching one. (Remember how they got Theo Fleury, Jagr, Lindros, half the Edmonton Oilers, and a bunch of other ginormous flops?) But whatever I may think of them, they are a good team. There's just too much drama in the DC. Rangers in 7.
Philadelphia vs. New Jersey
A few years ago, I would have picked the Devils. And the fact that they lost to the Flyers the last two times would have been enough for me to be convinced that Marty would have somethin' extra special for their ass. But he's just not up to it anymore. And their coach is a little green.
Well, actually, the part of the team that isn't over the hill is also too green with rare exception. Lou Lamoriello used to talk about having freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Now, he has freshman, a handful of sophomores, few juniors, a bunch of seniors and a few grad students like Brodeur. Their PK is shit, their power play isn't as good as it should be with Kovalchuk (another non-playoff star—give me Claude Lemieux or even Stumpy Thomas ffs). And Marty basically personally blew at least 1 game this round.
Yeah, they beat the Panthers in OT in a game 7. But that was a team with an undeserved home ice advantage, a shitty retread goalie, a bunch of spare parts, and a hothead coach. OK, so the Flyers have a hothead coach—but one with a ring. And they just shelled the Penguins. It was gory.
Flyers in 7.
Embarrassing on the record forecast: Blues over Nashville, Flyers over Rangers. Blues over Flyers.
St. Louis vs. Los Angeles
No team looked better to me in the first round than the Blues. Every skater was always in the right place and their goaltending looked great. They made the Sharks look bad. You might wonder about their lack of experience, but the Kings don't have any either. St. Louis in 7—and I expect the Blues to at least go to the finals, and I'd say they're my favorite to win the Cup right now.
Phoenix vs. Nashville
Nashville has the defense and the goaltending. Is this their year? Maybe. They need to do this quickly to be convincing too. Phoenix should not have beat Chicago. Nashville in 5.
New York vs. Washington
Holtby is doing something of the "hot goalie" thing, but it doesn't look like the cheap coaching trick of making reducing Ovechkin's minutes to get him to do something is working out all the great. Remember when the big stars scored in the post-season too? You know, in the "dead puck era?" Yzerman, Sakic, Lemieux, Gretzky, Niedermayer, Jagr, Hull?
As much as I hate the Rangers, they have mitigated a lot of what I hated about them by actually, you know, building a team instead of poaching one. (Remember how they got Theo Fleury, Jagr, Lindros, half the Edmonton Oilers, and a bunch of other ginormous flops?) But whatever I may think of them, they are a good team. There's just too much drama in the DC. Rangers in 7.
Philadelphia vs. New Jersey
A few years ago, I would have picked the Devils. And the fact that they lost to the Flyers the last two times would have been enough for me to be convinced that Marty would have somethin' extra special for their ass. But he's just not up to it anymore. And their coach is a little green.
Well, actually, the part of the team that isn't over the hill is also too green with rare exception. Lou Lamoriello used to talk about having freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Now, he has freshman, a handful of sophomores, few juniors, a bunch of seniors and a few grad students like Brodeur. Their PK is shit, their power play isn't as good as it should be with Kovalchuk (another non-playoff star—give me Claude Lemieux or even Stumpy Thomas ffs). And Marty basically personally blew at least 1 game this round.
Yeah, they beat the Panthers in OT in a game 7. But that was a team with an undeserved home ice advantage, a shitty retread goalie, a bunch of spare parts, and a hothead coach. OK, so the Flyers have a hothead coach—but one with a ring. And they just shelled the Penguins. It was gory.
Flyers in 7.
Embarrassing on the record forecast: Blues over Nashville, Flyers over Rangers. Blues over Flyers.
// posted by Rick @ 12:07 AM
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Even More Evidence Hockey Is Getting Better
First, Wayne says the playoffs are "risqué," and now a major Canadian newspaper wonders if we haven't seen a return to the "Dead Puck Era." (This on the basis of an interview with Sharks GM Doug Wilson who has the sorriest bunch of playoff chokers south of the Fraser River)
As if Phil Esposito scoring 60 goals and Wayne Gretzky scoring 90+ goals a seasons was the norm, not an aberration. And you might point out that there Steve Stamkos scored 60 this year.
As I've always said, "Dead Puck Era" is code for any hockey game not scoring 8-7 dominated by a couple of forwards who can't play defense and appear on cereal boxes.
As if Phil Esposito scoring 60 goals and Wayne Gretzky scoring 90+ goals a seasons was the norm, not an aberration. And you might point out that there Steve Stamkos scored 60 this year.
As I've always said, "Dead Puck Era" is code for any hockey game not scoring 8-7 dominated by a couple of forwards who can't play defense and appear on cereal boxes.
// posted by Rick @ 8:40 AM
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Parity
Another thing parity means is that teams have to rebuild (and therefore dismantle) quicker. You don't have time (or much at least) to wait for a group to "gel." If they don't work, you have to deal with it. Cap issues, earlier free agency, and the deemphasis of the franchise goalie all spell this.
Some GMs have adapted to the quick rebuild issue, but only a couple have gotten the flip side. Philadelphia is the best example of a team that has really changed gears without waiting for even more dismal failure.
Sure, they lost in the final just two short years ago. But that didn't stop their management from blowing the team up and they are much better now.
So, if there aren't major trades involving San Jose, Detroit, Vancouver, Chicago (just to name a few of this years playoff teams that have gone deep recently) there is something wrong. No movement clauses are a big problem for San Jose, but this core has done not gotten it done—it's a team that's supposed to win the Cup, not get bounced early. It's been 10 years+ since the Sharks were mediocre. Time to stop grading them on a curve and expect a winner there.
Some GMs have adapted to the quick rebuild issue, but only a couple have gotten the flip side. Philadelphia is the best example of a team that has really changed gears without waiting for even more dismal failure.
Sure, they lost in the final just two short years ago. But that didn't stop their management from blowing the team up and they are much better now.
So, if there aren't major trades involving San Jose, Detroit, Vancouver, Chicago (just to name a few of this years playoff teams that have gone deep recently) there is something wrong. No movement clauses are a big problem for San Jose, but this core has done not gotten it done—it's a team that's supposed to win the Cup, not get bounced early. It's been 10 years+ since the Sharks were mediocre. Time to stop grading them on a curve and expect a winner there.
// posted by Rick @ 8:24 PM
Thursday, April 19, 2012
About these playoffs.
In case you're wondering why these playoffs are so damn good: Wayne thinks they're—and I quote—"risqué". That's all you need to know. If it's good hockey, get out the fainting couch for Hwayne.
// posted by Rick @ 9:59 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Bring Back The Red Line.
Nobody could have predicted that "The New NHL" would fail. Now, hockey pundits are finally starting to admit that the rule changes might have something to do with all of the concussions and may actually be reducing scoring.
Bring back the red line.
Get rid of the trapezoid.
Enforce the crease rule.
Respect the different skills of all positions, not just forwards and scoring.
Bring back the red line.
Get rid of the trapezoid.
Enforce the crease rule.
Respect the different skills of all positions, not just forwards and scoring.
// posted by Rick @ 11:41 AM
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
East: Round 1 Wrap, Round 2 Predictions
Washington started to live up to expectations and crushed the mediocre Rangers, who overperformed their skill level.
Philadelphia took advantage of the less-than-stellar appearances that Ryan Miller made, and Buffalo couldn't get it done when he wasn't there to steal the game.
Pittsburgh almost made it. Seems like they would have won with Crosby and/or Malkin.
Boston and Montreal was the best series in the East in the first round and in the top 3 overall.
(1) Washington vs. (5) Tampa Bay
Washington in 5
Tampa Bay relied on another round of Roloson acrobatics to beat the seriously depleted Pittsburgh. Washington is much better.
(2) Philadelphia vs. (3) Boston
Philadelphia in 7
If the Flyers have settled on Boucher and he's solid, they should be able to eek this one out. They've shown some grit this year.
...what this means... (1) Washington vs. (2) Philadelphia with Washington losing to Vancouver in the finals.
Philadelphia took advantage of the less-than-stellar appearances that Ryan Miller made, and Buffalo couldn't get it done when he wasn't there to steal the game.
Pittsburgh almost made it. Seems like they would have won with Crosby and/or Malkin.
Boston and Montreal was the best series in the East in the first round and in the top 3 overall.
(1) Washington vs. (5) Tampa Bay
Washington in 5
Tampa Bay relied on another round of Roloson acrobatics to beat the seriously depleted Pittsburgh. Washington is much better.
(2) Philadelphia vs. (3) Boston
Philadelphia in 7
If the Flyers have settled on Boucher and he's solid, they should be able to eek this one out. They've shown some grit this year.
...what this means... (1) Washington vs. (2) Philadelphia with Washington losing to Vancouver in the finals.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
West: Round 1 Wrap, Round 2 Predictions
Vancouver almost choked after the champs decided that they weren't going out like that. They won't be able to spot Nashville 3 games like that as long as Nashville keeps playing the way they have.
The Coyotes collapsed along with Bryzgalov and under the strain of the uncertainty of where the franchise would be located. Maybe it was a lot more real than last year when they used those anxieties as their fuel.
The Ducks couldn't keep Nashville's tenacious forwards out of their zone and had mediocre goal tending. Rinne didn't show he can steal a series in this one and Nashville's PK will have to be better against the Sedins.
The Sharks look shaky. The Kings were without their best forward and came close to pulling off the upset, but just couldn't finish it in OT. They were close.
Give that, here are my picks for round 2 out west:
(1) Vancouver vs. (5) Nashville
Vancouver in 6
Rinne will have to steal the series and he showed no indication in the first round he could do that. The Canucks are as deep at forward as the Ducks were and deeper everywhere else.
(2) San Jose vs. (3) Detroit
Detroit in 7
The Wings aren't going to give San Jose three wins in OT and aren't going to give up a 4 goal lead. San Jose's shaky goaltending will get even more pressured by Detroit and San Jose has not shown the guts to beat Detroit or any other elite team in the playoffs. Detroit might take a game or two to get back into game shape.
...Resulting in (1) Vancouver vs. (3) Detroit with Vancouver winning in 7 and bringing the Cup back to the West Coast after a 4 year absence and back to Canada after an 18 year absence.
The Coyotes collapsed along with Bryzgalov and under the strain of the uncertainty of where the franchise would be located. Maybe it was a lot more real than last year when they used those anxieties as their fuel.
The Ducks couldn't keep Nashville's tenacious forwards out of their zone and had mediocre goal tending. Rinne didn't show he can steal a series in this one and Nashville's PK will have to be better against the Sedins.
The Sharks look shaky. The Kings were without their best forward and came close to pulling off the upset, but just couldn't finish it in OT. They were close.
Give that, here are my picks for round 2 out west:
(1) Vancouver vs. (5) Nashville
Vancouver in 6
Rinne will have to steal the series and he showed no indication in the first round he could do that. The Canucks are as deep at forward as the Ducks were and deeper everywhere else.
(2) San Jose vs. (3) Detroit
Detroit in 7
The Wings aren't going to give San Jose three wins in OT and aren't going to give up a 4 goal lead. San Jose's shaky goaltending will get even more pressured by Detroit and San Jose has not shown the guts to beat Detroit or any other elite team in the playoffs. Detroit might take a game or two to get back into game shape.
...Resulting in (1) Vancouver vs. (3) Detroit with Vancouver winning in 7 and bringing the Cup back to the West Coast after a 4 year absence and back to Canada after an 18 year absence.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Round 1: Western Conference
(1) Vancouver versus (8) Chicago/Dallas
Vancouver in 5
I'm not going to bother waiting to see who wins the 8 seed. Neither of them are going to beat the Canucks.
(2) San Jose versus (7) Los Angeles
San Jose in 6
Fans have waited for 20 years for this series. When the Sharks came into being, they were a bottom-tier team, while the Kings enjoyed their run with Wayne Gretzky in his prime. After the Kings went into their dark ages, the Sharks emerged, slowly but surely, as a competitive team every year. Neither team has won a Stanley Cup, and only the Kings have been to the finals, just once. I am hopeful that this is the most exciting series to watch.
The Sharks have talent at every position but they have problems in the playoffs. I think a lot of that had to do with their former goaltender. He had decent stats, but he never really stole a series. But I could be wrong. There could be more than one problem here. Still, I think they have the experience, the hunger, and the talent to outshine the Kings, their anemic power play, and their depleted forwards.
Shark Weak on NHL won't be until later on.
(3) Detroit versus (6) Phoenix
Phoenix in 7
The playoffs are still about goaltending first. I'm gonna make this my "against the grain" pick because of Bryzgalov on the one hand and Howard on the other. There's not much else that needs to be said.
(4) Anaheim versus (5) Nashville
Anaheim in 6
Anaheim has something to talk about with their goaltending situation, but they have two backups playing fantastic and one starter with a great playoff record with a few days to get back to 100%. Still, the Ducks are a nasty team that can score with an underrated D corps. Nashville will have to figure out how to stop two lines. Rinne will have to steal the series for them, because they can't score and their PP is terrible.
What this means:
Round 2: VAN vs. PHX, SJ vs. ANA, WAS vs. TAM, PHI vs. BOS.
Vancouver in 5
I'm not going to bother waiting to see who wins the 8 seed. Neither of them are going to beat the Canucks.
(2) San Jose versus (7) Los Angeles
San Jose in 6
Fans have waited for 20 years for this series. When the Sharks came into being, they were a bottom-tier team, while the Kings enjoyed their run with Wayne Gretzky in his prime. After the Kings went into their dark ages, the Sharks emerged, slowly but surely, as a competitive team every year. Neither team has won a Stanley Cup, and only the Kings have been to the finals, just once. I am hopeful that this is the most exciting series to watch.
The Sharks have talent at every position but they have problems in the playoffs. I think a lot of that had to do with their former goaltender. He had decent stats, but he never really stole a series. But I could be wrong. There could be more than one problem here. Still, I think they have the experience, the hunger, and the talent to outshine the Kings, their anemic power play, and their depleted forwards.
Shark Weak on NHL won't be until later on.
(3) Detroit versus (6) Phoenix
Phoenix in 7
The playoffs are still about goaltending first. I'm gonna make this my "against the grain" pick because of Bryzgalov on the one hand and Howard on the other. There's not much else that needs to be said.
(4) Anaheim versus (5) Nashville
Anaheim in 6
Anaheim has something to talk about with their goaltending situation, but they have two backups playing fantastic and one starter with a great playoff record with a few days to get back to 100%. Still, the Ducks are a nasty team that can score with an underrated D corps. Nashville will have to figure out how to stop two lines. Rinne will have to steal the series for them, because they can't score and their PP is terrible.
What this means:
Round 2: VAN vs. PHX, SJ vs. ANA, WAS vs. TAM, PHI vs. BOS.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Eastern Conference Round 1
Prediction time!
Washington vs. New York Rangers
Washington in 5.
New York is actually a better offensive team than the Capitals, and have a better overall plus/minus. But New York doesn't have the scoring depth to hang in there. Washington will have to get quality 'tending in order to go deep, but I think they've got this one.
Philadelphia vs. Buffalo
Philadelphia in 4
Ryan Miller versus the Flyers. Nuff said.
Boston vs. Montreal
Boston in 7
This is probably going to be a bit bloody, but Boston has more of everything.
Pittsburgh vs. Tampa Bay
Tampa in 6
Pittsburgh has a good core group leftover from their Cup run, but they aren't the same team and injuries have depleted them. Tampa has some experience as well and also some youthful energy, which seems to be the post-lockout mix for success.
Washington vs. New York Rangers
Washington in 5.
New York is actually a better offensive team than the Capitals, and have a better overall plus/minus. But New York doesn't have the scoring depth to hang in there. Washington will have to get quality 'tending in order to go deep, but I think they've got this one.
Philadelphia vs. Buffalo
Philadelphia in 4
Ryan Miller versus the Flyers. Nuff said.
Boston vs. Montreal
Boston in 7
This is probably going to be a bit bloody, but Boston has more of everything.
Pittsburgh vs. Tampa Bay
Tampa in 6
Pittsburgh has a good core group leftover from their Cup run, but they aren't the same team and injuries have depleted them. Tampa has some experience as well and also some youthful energy, which seems to be the post-lockout mix for success.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Do I Recant?
No.
First of all, Lamoriello imposes very tough standards of judgment on everyone including himself. This is one of the things I admire about him. This is why I think it's more than fair to pass this kind of judgment on the man himself.
The Devils are at a crossroads this season, one they haven't really faced in 20 years. They are out of the playoffs. They have no long term solution for a coach. Marty Brodeur is no longer capable of playing at a high level for 70 games and the playoffs, but he still has it. Should he be re-signed? There's no long term solution there. Who knows what it will take to get Zach Parise under contract. A lot of the team's bad contracts still have another year on them.
And while the season ended on a great run, that run was unproductive. Sure, Ilya Kovalchuk saved some face for everyone by getting to 30 goals, a spectacular proportion of which were game winning. But now the team is faced with building from the forward ranks back, something that completely breaks their formula. And they won't even have a lottery pick to deal with it (though all of the goalies and defensemen except one are likely to still be available at #7). But they didn't even make the playoffs. I'm not sure that would have meant anything for the long-term health of the organization, but it might have made things look a little better. But this is an organization where only winning a Stanley Cup is a successful season. Lou's standards again.
There are many NHL teams in worse shape than the Devils. There are many that always seem to have potential and never do anything about it. But most of those teams and their fans are resigned to it (though the world changed for Hawk fans fast, didn't it?).
So, no. I don't take it back. Lou should either step aside, or focus more on being the team's CEO and promote someone else to the GM slot. But first he needs to find a long-term coach and a goalie.
First of all, Lamoriello imposes very tough standards of judgment on everyone including himself. This is one of the things I admire about him. This is why I think it's more than fair to pass this kind of judgment on the man himself.
The Devils are at a crossroads this season, one they haven't really faced in 20 years. They are out of the playoffs. They have no long term solution for a coach. Marty Brodeur is no longer capable of playing at a high level for 70 games and the playoffs, but he still has it. Should he be re-signed? There's no long term solution there. Who knows what it will take to get Zach Parise under contract. A lot of the team's bad contracts still have another year on them.
And while the season ended on a great run, that run was unproductive. Sure, Ilya Kovalchuk saved some face for everyone by getting to 30 goals, a spectacular proportion of which were game winning. But now the team is faced with building from the forward ranks back, something that completely breaks their formula. And they won't even have a lottery pick to deal with it (though all of the goalies and defensemen except one are likely to still be available at #7). But they didn't even make the playoffs. I'm not sure that would have meant anything for the long-term health of the organization, but it might have made things look a little better. But this is an organization where only winning a Stanley Cup is a successful season. Lou's standards again.
There are many NHL teams in worse shape than the Devils. There are many that always seem to have potential and never do anything about it. But most of those teams and their fans are resigned to it (though the world changed for Hawk fans fast, didn't it?).
So, no. I don't take it back. Lou should either step aside, or focus more on being the team's CEO and promote someone else to the GM slot. But first he needs to find a long-term coach and a goalie.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Resign, Lou.
The Devils' reporter Tom Gulliti tweeted tonight that a year ago, the Devils were in first place and tonight they are in last place. And while that tells a tale all on its own, the real story of the Devils decline from perennial Cup contenders stems from the abject failure of the team's management to adapt to the salary cap era.
Remember, the coaching carousel at one point included Lou himself after Larry Robinson's second stint (or was it his third?) behind the bench failed in yet another nervous breakdown. This was the first season after the lockout when the Devils also tried to bring back Alexander Mogilny and Vladimir Malakhov, both of whom were epic failures costing the Devils almost $10m in cap space until the Devils wiggled out.
Over four years ago, I started raising this red flag. At that time, there was an abject failure not only to transition to the cap era, but a failure to prepare by signing the right players to replace departing hall of fame defensemen Niedermayer and Stevens.
At some point, the build from the goal forward philosophy seemed to be deemed fulfilled simply by having Martin Brodeur in net. Now, the failure to replace the blue line corps is being compounded by the failure to give Martin Brodeur rest, and he is now burning out and may be more or less done. There is no replacement in sight. In other words, not only is the d-corps being filled with anonymous AHL jobbers, the net soon will be too.
But that's ok, because this philosophy has apparently been abandoned. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps the post-lockout NHL is simply so turned off by skill at any position other than forward that adapting to it is a must. But turning over the keys of the franchise to Ilya Kovalchuk has cost this team perhaps the most valuable of all of the seasons for which he is under contract: the last useful season of Martin Brodeur's career. This should have been their year.
It was Lou that allowed Scott Niedermayer to leave, even if it was through his failure to acquire his brother, who, res ipsa loquitur, was good enough for the team because he played here later. It was Lou that could never replace Pat Burns, probably because most coaches are scared to death to play for him. It was Lou that resigned Malakhov and Mogilny and signed McGillis. It was Lou that brought Bobby Holik of all people back. It was Lou that allowed Martin Brodeur to continue to play 70+ games per season even after it became clear this was bad. It was Lou that went all in on Ilya Kovalchuk. It was Lou that groomed John MacLean as one of the worst coaches in NHL history.
Is that a harsh standard of judgment? Maybe, but it's Lou's own. In fact, as is well documented on this site, I know that the media and the league applies ridiculous standards and double standards to the Devils. Is it because of Lou? In part, perhaps. But it is what it is. It can't be gotten around through a dominant team anymore.
It's time for Vanderbeek to send Lou off with the honor and dignity he deserves as the best general manager of the 20 year period from 1985-2005 and the architect of one of the NHL's most durable dynasties.
But it's time for a new direction.
Remember, the coaching carousel at one point included Lou himself after Larry Robinson's second stint (or was it his third?) behind the bench failed in yet another nervous breakdown. This was the first season after the lockout when the Devils also tried to bring back Alexander Mogilny and Vladimir Malakhov, both of whom were epic failures costing the Devils almost $10m in cap space until the Devils wiggled out.
Over four years ago, I started raising this red flag. At that time, there was an abject failure not only to transition to the cap era, but a failure to prepare by signing the right players to replace departing hall of fame defensemen Niedermayer and Stevens.
At some point, the build from the goal forward philosophy seemed to be deemed fulfilled simply by having Martin Brodeur in net. Now, the failure to replace the blue line corps is being compounded by the failure to give Martin Brodeur rest, and he is now burning out and may be more or less done. There is no replacement in sight. In other words, not only is the d-corps being filled with anonymous AHL jobbers, the net soon will be too.
But that's ok, because this philosophy has apparently been abandoned. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps the post-lockout NHL is simply so turned off by skill at any position other than forward that adapting to it is a must. But turning over the keys of the franchise to Ilya Kovalchuk has cost this team perhaps the most valuable of all of the seasons for which he is under contract: the last useful season of Martin Brodeur's career. This should have been their year.
It was Lou that allowed Scott Niedermayer to leave, even if it was through his failure to acquire his brother, who, res ipsa loquitur, was good enough for the team because he played here later. It was Lou that could never replace Pat Burns, probably because most coaches are scared to death to play for him. It was Lou that resigned Malakhov and Mogilny and signed McGillis. It was Lou that brought Bobby Holik of all people back. It was Lou that allowed Martin Brodeur to continue to play 70+ games per season even after it became clear this was bad. It was Lou that went all in on Ilya Kovalchuk. It was Lou that groomed John MacLean as one of the worst coaches in NHL history.
Is that a harsh standard of judgment? Maybe, but it's Lou's own. In fact, as is well documented on this site, I know that the media and the league applies ridiculous standards and double standards to the Devils. Is it because of Lou? In part, perhaps. But it is what it is. It can't be gotten around through a dominant team anymore.
It's time for Vanderbeek to send Lou off with the honor and dignity he deserves as the best general manager of the 20 year period from 1985-2005 and the architect of one of the NHL's most durable dynasties.
But it's time for a new direction.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Occam's Razor
People seem to be reacting to the Ducks win over the Sharks as the Ducks stealing a game they didn't deserve to win. I think that's true simply based on the gameplay. But to the extent that this has built in bias that the Sharks are a good team and the Ducks are a bad team, it's false.
The Ducks are a very average team. But, no matter what we want to think, the Sharks are a bad team. They deserve their place in the standings.
In the salary cap era, you don't get 5 years to win a Cup with your team. You get a very, very short window. They blew it.
The Ducks are a very average team. But, no matter what we want to think, the Sharks are a bad team. They deserve their place in the standings.
In the salary cap era, you don't get 5 years to win a Cup with your team. You get a very, very short window. They blew it.
Friday, November 5, 2010
2011
The NHL has more or less completed the transition into the look and feel of a salary-capped league. That is, not only are there not dynasties in the sense of multiple, repeat championships, there is also rapid turnover in who the elite teams are, or even who the playoff teams are.
This means anyone can win each year. Chicago had a good "warm up" playoff run in 2009, but it might have been tough to pick them to win it all even still.
Player mobility is up even more. The importance of veteran defenseman is greatly reduced. This may not be by design, because the market for defensemen was greatly inflated. But the elimination of goaltending as a dynasty- or even consistency-making element of a team, worthy of being a franchise player, is also complete. And it is by design. Brodeur will probably be the last of his kind for a while.
This is all to say that I think that the value of a prediction under these circumstances is even sillier than it used to be. Sure, someone will name the proper team. But the meaningful information that that guess could have been made on is so greatly reduced as to suggest it was dumb luck, and nothing else.
Still, there are some things you can see after 10 games or so about a team. Some just aren't cohesive or mentally able to win. Those teams probably won't be Cup contenders.
So, on the basis of even less meaningful information than before, I present my predictions for 2011.
Stanley Cup: Los Angeles Kings
Eastern Conference Champion: Washington Capitals
Final Four: LAK, WAS, STL, MTL
Playoff Teams: LAK, DET, VAN, STL, DAL, CHI, ANA, COLO; PHI, WAS, MTL, PIT, NYR, BOS, OTT, TOR
This means anyone can win each year. Chicago had a good "warm up" playoff run in 2009, but it might have been tough to pick them to win it all even still.
Player mobility is up even more. The importance of veteran defenseman is greatly reduced. This may not be by design, because the market for defensemen was greatly inflated. But the elimination of goaltending as a dynasty- or even consistency-making element of a team, worthy of being a franchise player, is also complete. And it is by design. Brodeur will probably be the last of his kind for a while.
This is all to say that I think that the value of a prediction under these circumstances is even sillier than it used to be. Sure, someone will name the proper team. But the meaningful information that that guess could have been made on is so greatly reduced as to suggest it was dumb luck, and nothing else.
Still, there are some things you can see after 10 games or so about a team. Some just aren't cohesive or mentally able to win. Those teams probably won't be Cup contenders.
So, on the basis of even less meaningful information than before, I present my predictions for 2011.
Stanley Cup: Los Angeles Kings
Eastern Conference Champion: Washington Capitals
Final Four: LAK, WAS, STL, MTL
Playoff Teams: LAK, DET, VAN, STL, DAL, CHI, ANA, COLO; PHI, WAS, MTL, PIT, NYR, BOS, OTT, TOR
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]