Anaheim Ducks - your Stanley Cup Champions

Really has a ring to it, eh?

various observations/notes:

The Ducks should've worn this abomination last night:



Gary Bettman - as always - couldn't resist a snarky opportunity to stick a little needle to his critics when on the red carpet (I realize I'm old-fashioned when I pine for the days where there were no on-ice wireless mics and announcements, but I always prefer to have an event or moment sell itself. Welcome to the 21st century, I suppose...) he rhetorically, arrogantly, and self-servingly stated to the crowd "well, I guess hockey is doing pretty well in California!" knowing that his ever-growing legion of critics has been on him harder than ever regarding ill-advised markets, etc. Bettman loves to be able to point out the last three Cup champions: Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim.


Hard not to love the play of Scott Niedermayer, a Hall-of-Fame mortal lock. But I thought the Conn Smythe could - and should - have gone to Andy MacDonald, who I'm guessing a lot of fans had very little idea about before this series. He's a game-breaker and was a constant threat during the entire series.


Steve Smith now has historical company in one Chris Phillips:




Overall, Ottawa played a rather pitiful series. Sure they had their moments where they looked like the team that steamrolled through the second half of the season and through the first three rounds of the playoffs - much of last night's second period for instance. But there were many who simply failed to compete - none more in my book than Jason Spezza. Spezza never showed any creativity with the puck and repeatedly failed on the defensive end of his game. Aside from countless turnovers his listless and frankly contact-avoidance style of play left his teammates (mostly Daniel Alfredsson, one of the few Sens forwards who brought game) in the lurch. Spezza registered just one shot over the final three games and overall in the five-game series registered just two points - both second assists.

Although he was not the reason they lost, Ray Emery looked shaky throughout. Despite a few highlight-reel saves, his positioning is just awful and he has no idea how to control a rebound. From my observing him, he also seems to lose sight of the puck much more often than other goalies. I became a believer in Emery this year after his playoff flame-out last season. However, after this performance, Emery will have to improve if the Sens hope to repeat next season as Eastern Conference champions.


At any rate, congratulations to the Ducks. In no way were they a fluke champion, they either held the West lead or were within a few points of it all season, and crushed the high-scoring Senators team in five. With the young core of talent in Anaheim, they have a great chance at either repeating or getting back to the finals within the next few years.

And if Teemu Selanne decides to go out Lanny McDonald style and retire, what a great ride it has been. From his never-to-be-duplicated 76-goal rookie season in Winnipeg to his post-lockout resurgence in Anaheim (88 goals in the past two seasons) over the past 14 years fans have been treated to one of the all-time greats. Congratulations to one of the nicest and classiest athletes to ever play in North America.





The NHL draft begins two weeks from tomorrow night.

Can people please stop bitching about the schedule?

to be posted at SportsBlurb.com and SportingNews.com

Enough already about the schedule.

Perhaps the biggest off-ice story in the NHL over the past week (besides the $450 price tag for a new official NHL robot-jersey) was that after a year of pillow-talk, the NHL finally decided to not alter the schedule for next year with the vote falling one short of official approval. There was everything short of absolute promises from the league to alter the schedule next year to insure that every team faced each other at least once, which would alleviate apparent concerns that not every fan had the opportunity to see every other team.

So now it’s my turn to moan about the NHL and their schedule but I'm apparently in the minority in that I don’t mind that the present schedule stays as is. I've never understood the outcry about the schedule in the first place. As a frequent critic of the regular season for other reasons (unnecessary length, best teams not rewarded come playoff time), anything that legitimizes the regular season and the (artificially created) divisions is a good thing. A good schedule is one that encourages and develops rivalries – therefore seeing a roughly balanced schedule with 30 teams in six divisions where each team plays every other team two or three times just doesn’t make sense. Why not just lump all 30 teams together, take the top 16 at the end of the regular season and have a standard bracket where the top team plays the worst? (…and no, I wouldn't endorse that either...)

Yes, some or most of the criticism involves the apparent desire of fans in the Western Conference cities to see Pittsburgh's Sidney Crosby and Washington's Alexander Ovechkin, but that's a convenient way to summarize the position using high-profile examples. If an unbalanced schedule means a Montreal Canadiens fan never gets to see their team play against Jarome Iginla or Joe Thornton – I say that’s just too bad. In that specific case I’d like to think there would be more interest in both the short and long term in seeing them battle the Bruins six or seven times and foster some good old hatred again.

But here’s the rub – why is it so difficult to find a compromise that works for everyone? There are 30 teams evenly distributed among six divisions. The present playoff format rewards you for winning your division, so to make it meaningful you need to play a bulk of games against the four other teams in your division. How about six games against each team in your division (24 total), three against each of the others in your conference (30), and two against each in the other conference (30). That would give you 84 games total. Everyone gets a home and home against every team in the other conference to see how the other half lives. And you still play nearly 65% of your games within your own conference, (which to me is necessary because that's who you're battling for playoff position with), including six games against each divisional opponent. To make it even better, make it only two against your other conference foes, dropping the schedule to a much more palatable 74. There - was that so hard?

Another frustrating (and somewhat controversial in some corners) aspect to the argument of schedule restructuring is the fact that, frankly, just not that many people are interested in a lot of the newer NHL markets. And to be clear, it’s not just crusty old-time hockey fans or diehard traditionalists (guilty-as-charged, somewhat…). For instance, last month during a Detroit/Columbus telecast the network posted the upcoming schedule for the Red Wings. They'd played Columbus twice in a row, and were about to play Minnesota three consecutive games and then Columbus again. The announcer himself said that no Wings fan wants to see Columbus three times and something about "that's not a way to sell tickets." Which begs the question…why did the NHL expand again?

And in the end, there's the hard truth: this entire debate about the schedule is – as always in the NHL – masking a deeper problem. I understand how 32 games against divisional opponents that aren't really rivals could feel oppressive and repetitive. But can't anyone see the inherent answer here? There are too many teams. You've heard it time and time again, but the fact remains: there are too many teams, and in too many markets that don’t draw interest either locally or nationally. With 30 teams it is impossible to satisfy all angles - you can't have a meaningful schedule that emphasizes rivalries because for every Montreal-Boston, Buffalo-Toronto, or Calgary-Edmonton series of games you have Columbus-Nashville, Florida-Washington, or Anaheim-Phoenix. I apologize to diehard fans of those teams, because I personally know they exist. There just aren't many of them, and certainly not enough to make this entire grand "let's make the NHL all things to all people" experiment anything but a horrible waste of nearly 15 years. Amazing how the suits can't see the logic (or lack thereof) here, and only have cared about the initial franchise fees they get to divvy up. The NHL expanded into far too many markets that not only nobody else cares about, but can't even generate interest locally (Nashville, Phoenix, Florida, Atlanta, Carolina - before you jump down my throat at the Carolina reference, they had to give tickets away during last year’s playoffs and tried restricting sales to out-of-town fans). So now there are so-called "schedule problems" because teams want to see more rivals.

My compromise schedule idea above shows how to emphasize (or force) rivalries while still seeing every team in the league using the present 30 team league. I know I'm not alone in thinking this, but if the league were to contract (and strengthen) itself to 24 markets (hint: not all present markets) I can't see how it wouldn't be stronger.

Since I’ve completely moved into fantasy-land here, just for fun take a look at this hypothetical divisional setup, under a more reasonable expansion over the past 15 years and see if you can’t see some great rivalries. Each team plays each divisional rival six times, each other team three times, giving you 84 games. I'd prefer less, so you can toy with the scheduling a bit (divisonal rivals eight times, other teams play a home and home and you have a nice 76 game schedule). Again, this is one person's (me) idea of a potentially streamlined NHL (and i'm not referring to the Reebok 9% faster uniform) that could have had excitement and rivalries every night:

Ottawa
Buffalo
Montreal
Boston
Toronto
Columbus

Philadelphia
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
NJ Devils
Pittsburgh
Washington

Detroit
Colorado
St. Louis
Chicago
Dallas
Minnesota

Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Winnipeg (franchise move - take your pick)
San Jose
Los Angeles

===============

UPDATE: that was my "kind" article. here's how i really feel, as posted on SportsFrog:

fuck. i tried to be nice (not really, but i say it anyways). fuck Bettman and his NHL. fuck it all. we need a fucking revolution. 30 teams? fuck you Gary - get lost. you win the Cup and you're giving away tickets during the final two rounds?? WHAT?? gone - sorry Carolina. First place in your division and you're in the bottom third of attendance? sorry Anaheim and Atlanta (we gave you your chance in the 70s, you had Dan Bouchard, and you fucked up then too.). Alexander Ofuckingvechkin is one of the most talented and exciting players to come around in anyone's lifetime and you're packing 'em in to 71% capacity? damn you Washington, damn you straight to hell. Best team in the NHL and you have a HIGHLY questionable 22nd-best attendance in Nashville, as you're giving away literally thousands of tickets every night? get. out.

I don't even care about league popularity - i don't. in fact, i much preferred it when the NHL was a select club - nobody knew about it except the diehards. oh, we'd gladly welcome any new members, no question. except you had to do it on our terms, our teams, our game. The problem is that in trying to win casual sports/entertainment fan respectability you sold US out. the diehards. the ones that thought nothing of avoiding all human contact during a Nordiques-Canadiens series. Stayed up late for the second half of a playoff doubleheader to see the white out under the Queen in Winnipeg. ORGAN music. no exploding scoreboards. no robotic uniforms. no commissioner to speak of.

ok, it's not 100% bad - some (a few) of the new markets can be legit. fine. 16 of 21 teams making the playoffs was pretty ridiculous, i grant you. So here's how my league looks after some contraction and movement. i thought about going easy and not putting a team in Quebec yet due to no new arena...but that's one of the traps, isn't it? Le Colisee was an ATMOSPHERE. something no new arena has that i've seen. Hello La Belle Province. Winnipeg gets it no questions asked since they do have an arena.

Ottawa
Buffalo
Montreal
Boston
Toronto
Quebec

Philadelphia
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
NJ Devils
Pittsburgh
Detroit

Colorado
St. Louis
Chicago
Dallas
Minnesota
Columbus

Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Winnipeg (franchise move - take your pick from the missing)
San Jose
Los Angeles

Top 6 in each conference make the playoffs, with the 2 division winners getting 1st round byes.

We chop salaries in the first year by 25%, go fuck yourself if you don't like it Goodenow. Salaries for premier players will soon rise due to the market but overall they'll stay lower than present day simply because there are less (idiots) teams vying for services.

=============
dammit. this league is gonna drive me to drink. it's all fucking marketing.

Happy New Year Pittsburgh!

(will be published at http://www.sportsblurb.com/hockey/penalty.asp on January 3rd. A "cleaned up" version of my last few posts...)

Happy New Year to everyone! There’s been no shortage of hockey news over the past few weeks – Rory Fitzpatrick and the All-Star controversy, the ongoing World Junior Championships (with this morning’s USA vs. Canada semifinal game at 9:30EST live on Center Ice) – but probably the biggest news item over my break was the never-ending franchise instability in Pittsburgh, and I have more than a few thoughts about this mess:

The notion that a traditional hockey market - Pittsburgh - could get shafted with a move of the Penguins frosts me. Yes, I'm cynical: I'm taking NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's supposed grand attempts to keep the franchise in Pittsburgh with a grain of salt - I don't buy it. The newly-rumoured destinations are also shocking to me - Kansas City??? Didn't we go through this once before back in the 1970s? Wonderful - another corporate outpost that will have invested little hockey time but will buy a preformed entertainment package all ready to market and sell to potential fans. Hey, here's an alternative for Kansas City sports fans: how about someone finding a replacement for David Glass and restoring a once-proud franchise? He and I might, perhaps, define our love of sports differently.

Pittsburgh was a member of the 1967 NHL expansion - the league's first in nearly 30 years - and was a solid and longtime member of the AHL when that league was not far below the NHL in terms of talent. Moving them and treating them like a fly-by-night outfit when they are potentially on the precipice of years of greatness is sickly reminiscent of the Quebec Nordiques’ move in 1995. This is not to say Denver wasn't/isn't a good market for hockey - it has been. But that entire soap opera reeked for many reasons, including:

1) Moving the team from Quebec was not due to lack of support - Le Colisee in Quebec packed in fans to well over 90% capacity in their final season, and the natural rivalry they had with the Canadiens was both ugly and beautiful and made the NHL a better place. The NHL wanted out of a so-called "smaller" market and wanted rich American owners to improve their “footprint” in the United States (see also erstwhile Hall of Famer Gil Stein and his offensive courting of Wayne Huizenga (Panthers) and Michael Eisner (Ducks)).

2) Nearly any city will support a great team (Panthers, Florida circa 1996). A true test would be moving a rotten team like the Phoenix Coyotes and seeing if a new city or market would support them (although I know one in Southeastern Manitoba that would with no qualms).

Forgive the bitterness - and sincerely, I mean no offence to Kansas City. My ire and offence is aimed squarely at the money-hungry non-fans that run the NHL. As much as I would personally love to see more teams in Canada (but PLEASE: no more teams in the league - move some of the failed experiments back up north), moving out of Pittsburgh would just be wrong, very wrong. If Mr. Bettman had been commissioner in 1978 who's to say he wouldn't have assisted in moving the Red Wings to Houston? Detroit had been a league punching bag for ages and was playing in an old stadium (read: NO LUXURY BOXES!!). Must be time to move the franchise!

Team success is cyclical - you can't uproot decades of tradition for the quick dollar. You will lose millions of fans (who will as a result hang you in effigy), you might gain a few fans in the new city but when that team inevitably stinks - as all teams eventually do - you have no generational backing or love of hockey, so they'll spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere. It’s not hard to find an example or two from the latest pool(s) of expansion that fits this description.

Admittedly, I feel like a curmudgeon railing against the last decade-plus of poorly considered expansion, but it is absurd to create franchise after franchise in cities where a professional hockey game is just another night out rather than a borderline obsession. One or two experiments would have been acceptable, but we’ve already gone past lunacy – why consider it again? Relocation seems to boost franchise values in the short-term causing salaries to go up league-wide, thereby making the smaller (often also home to the more diehard fans) market clubs struggle to make ends meet. Meanwhile the “novelty act” teams are lousy for a few years and the shine is off, leaving an empty house in a brand new arena. Capitalism at work? Yes, perhaps, but not a valid excuse for me – to me it is short term gain (debatable) for long-term alienation.

It was fantastic and heartbreaking last year for me to attend QMJHL games at Le Colisee in Quebec – a great old arena the likes of which will never be built again because there aren't luxury suites. The sightlines are excellent and steep (like its deceased brethren Boston Garden, Buffalo Memorial Aud, Maple Leaf Gardens), and Nordiques banners still hang from the rafters above. Marc Tardif. Peter Stastny. Jimmy Mann (kidding). A beautiful thing. I'll add one more fact: there were 9500 people there - for junior hockey.

The Jim Balsillie in-then-out saga was distasteful as well (assuming that it actually is over...). With the NHL having a history of looking for exactly the kind of franchise owner that Jim Balsillie is/would be (outrageously loaded with cash, head of a company with strong branding and inventors of a wildly popular product), why is he suddenly persona-non-grata to Mario Lemieux and Gary Bettman? On the surface there seemed to be no reason to shut him out and if it were anyone else but Balsillie I'd like to think the NHL would be begging him back and altering the deal to his liking.

While I've come to believe that Mr. Bettman really is protecting the existing Canadian teams (if not a little late), if he can help it there is no way in hell he will allow a team to relocate to Canada. Why all the stipulations in place right now for a troubled franchise? Where was he a decade ago when the Nordiques were on the rise after years of bad play? Even more puzzling is this: where was he when Winnipeg moved to the questionable hockey destination of Phoenix, Arizona? The same Winnipeg that actually voted and passed a plan to build a new arena. Bettman let the Whalers leave Hartford for parts unknown in the south, letting the Hurricanes play in an "alternate" site (Greensboro, NC) for over two years while they built a new arena in Raleigh.

Yet today, when a team could be owned by one of the wealthiest men in North America he is essentially pushed aside because of the possibility that the team could move to Canada.

Yet another chapter in the hypocritically run NHL - once again the recipe could be to try to force hockey upon unsuspecting fans. And then other fans around the league, as well as announcers and players will - for years to come - complain about the schedule and how "nobody wants to see our team play Kansas City/Las Vegas/Nashville/Columbus" eight times a year. Jets, Nordiques, Whalers...are the Penguins soon to follow in their footsteps? Think long-term, Mr. Bettman. Pittsburgh needs the Penguins. And the NHL needs Pittsburgh.

I think I miss the John Ziegler days.

Other brief thoughts: All-Star game balloting ended last night and I for one still hope that Fitzpatrick made the top two, although it seems likely he’d decline the invitation, (no) thanks in part to the backlash from such NHL celebrities as Wayne Gretzky and Don Cherry…get off your pedestals – we’re talking about one starting position for a completely meaningless game (I seem to remember how little you enjoyed Mike Ramsey’s hipcheck in the All-Star game, Wayne…it’s an exhibition, right?) that happens to be giving the NHL a lot of press. Actually at this point, most of the fun has been taken out of the Vote For Rory campaign…

[edit: the ever-bitter Tyler at mc79hockey.com captures my feelings about the formerly-great-one very nicely. Load it up and search for "Wayne"]

Those of you with the Center Ice package should be tuning into this week’s World Junior Championship games. Sadly, they’ve only been telecasting USA games which prevents diehards from seeing other great international talents but this USA squad is their most talented in years, led by London Knights’ rookie sniper Patrick Kane. Kane has been phenomenal with ten points in five games while likely improving his draft position for the upcoming NHL draft in June. NHL’s Central Scouting had him ranked third in the OHL before the season and 11^th overall but his strong showing in this tournament could push him into the top five. This morning’s semifinal pits the USA vs. Canada at 9:30am EST with the winner playing for the gold on Friday afternoon.

This weekend I’ll be scouting a few Ontario Hockey League games including taking an up-close look at 16-year old wunderkind John Tavares of the Oshawa Generals – although he won’t be NHL draft-eligible until 2009, he’s leading the OHL in goals with 32 in just 34 games. I’ll have the weekend report next Wednesday.