32 Thoughts: The Podcast - Reporting to Training Camp

Episode Date: January 5, 2021

Jeff and Elliotte kick off 2021 with a conversation about how some organizations accept losing, what it takes to create a winning culture and how, sometimes, you have to lose to win. They also discuss what the North Division could mean for the NHL from a revenue standpoint, expectations for a pair of Canadian teams, […]

1967 68 season in the nhl elliott year 51 for the national hockey league the nhl expands hold on hold on hold on hold on i know where you're going but i want to start with something a little different okay i know you spent like an hour and a half writing this great intro last night, and I'm totally ruining it. I did about two minutes before the podcast started. You'll get a chance to read this a little later. Did you watch the Sunday night football game? No, I followed it on Twitter. Okay, so I'm watching this.

Yeah. Total bad beat. I had the Washington football team minus six and a half, and they won by six. Like, that sucked. But anyway, so it was 17-14 Washington, and Philly is in the game, and if Philly wins, Washington misses the playoffs,

and the Giants get in. And for those of you who don't follow football, they've got a young quarterback right now, the Eagles do, Jalen Hurts, who's really coming on. He was the backup for most of the year. They finally finally started him and he's been pretty entertaining and pretty good and they take him out of the game they take him out of the game in a three-point game in the fourth quarter and they put in a guy who hasn't like thrown a pass in two years throw Throw the game. Yeah, they threw the game. Throw the game.

They absolutely threw the game. And the Giants players are exploding on Twitter. And Eli Manning's like, this is why we hate the Eagles. He doesn't even play anymore. And they save three draft spots by doing this. It is a total tank job. And they lose the game.

Washington's in. And the Giants miss the playoffs. And the Giants don't have much to bitch about they were six and ten i mean when you're six and ten you really can't complain but yeah i'm trying to imagine as i'm watching this a hockey comparable jeff like think of these rivals like kings ducksucks, Rangers Devils Islanders, Blackhawks Blues, Leafs Canadians, Flames Oilers. Basically what this is is it's one of these teams hoping to make the playoffs and another team saying, okay, it's a close game here. If we win, our rival gets in.

So we're taking out Carey Price and we're putting, I don't know, Mark Bergevin's grandson in that. Like, I don't know what this is. Like, I'm trying to imagine a similar situation in hockey and saying this is a total tank job we're doing in front of everyone to screw over a rival. Does it not speak to the idea of losing for winning?

That if you lose a game deliberately, it might put you in an advantageous position for, and I think with hockey, one of two things. One, a better opponent in the first round of the playoffs, or two, a better draft pick. This is why the NHL lottery was instituted in the first place. We all know, Pittsburgh Penguins, we see you. Eddie Johnson, we see you. What the Pittsburgh Penguins did towards the end of that season to secure the first overall draft pick to take Mario Lemieux in 1984.

It was obvious and blatant. Well, a couple years ago, the Eichel McDavid draft. What happened? Every time Sabre's goaltender had the nerve to make a save, Tim Murray traded him. That's not what you're here for. That's not what we're doing. To be honest with you, Elliot,

I'm surprised that it doesn't happen more often. Like, I know that the environment isn't always created for it to happen, but losing strategically is something that might be unpalatable to certain people in sports, to coaches, to players, not so much general managers in a lot of ways. But I've always wondered about this and kind of in a lot of ways waited to have the conversation about it. Strategic losing is something that we never talk about at all. And personally, I don't have a problem with it. Do you?

Losing to win. If we lose this game, we can put ourselves in a better position. Like, do you have to win every single game? Like, do you have to try to win every single game? I know that's what everyone tries to sell to fans. We're trying hard, everybody. We know that's not true. We know that's not true.

It's not that. I understand why organizations do that from time to time. I do. Amal, you have to find the JJ Watt clip. Because I believe that winning is an attitude. We give up 540 total yards, 29 of 38 passing. I mean, screens, quick passes, balls, out to open guys. Like, you can't do that.

It's very frustrating, obviously. You can win on a game. You can win a pass rush around the edge, and you're not going to get there. The ball is gone. We didn't stop the run. We played horrendously. I mean, it's harsh, but that is a fact of what we did today, and it is extremely frustrating.

Special athletes getting paid a whole lot of money. If you can't come in and put work in in the building, go out to the practice field and work hard, do your lifts, and do what you're supposed to do, you should not be here. This is a job. We are getting paid a whole lot of money. There are a lot of people that watch us and invest their time and their money into buying our jerseys and buying a whole bunch of shit. And they care about it. They care every single week. We're in week 16 and work four and 11. And there's fans that watch this game that show up to the stadium that put in time and energy and effort and care about this. So if you can't go out there and you can't work out,

you can't show up on time, you can't practice, you can't want to go out there and win, you shouldn't be here because this is a privilege. It's the greatest job in the world. You get to go out and play a game. And if you can't care enough, even in week 17, even when you're trashed, when you're four and 11, if you can't care enough, even in week 17, even when you're trash, when you're four and 11, if you can't care enough to go out there and give everything you've got and try your hardest, that's bullshit. So that's how there are people every week that still tweet you, that still come up to you and say, Hey, we're still rooting for you. We're still behind you. They have no reason whatsoever to, we stink, but they care and they still want to win and they still want you to

be great. That's why. Those people aren't getting paid. We're getting paid handsomely. That's why. And that's who I feel the most bad for is our fans and the people who care so deeply in this city and the people who love it and who truly want it to be great, and it's not. And that sucks as a player to know that we're not giving them what they deserve. Sometimes I worry that you create a feeling in your organization that it's acceptable to lose. Like, you take a look at Buffalo.

They haven't made the playoffs in a decade. And you think it's because of that one season when they tried to tank to get McDavid? I don't think it's because of the one season. It's obviously a bigger issue than that. But what I do think it can do is reinforce the mindset that it's okay. Like I'm looking at, you didn't watch the game last night.

I was looking at Jalen Hurts on the screen and they showed him and he was mad. He was mad, which I love. If I'm an Eagles fan or I'm a Jalen Hurts fan, I'm looking at that guy and I'm saying, that's the guy I want quarterbacking my team. You could tell he was really pissed off. And I always wonder, are you creating something in this player where you're saying to him that we don't care about winning all the time? Now, I realize that's the emotion of the moment and maybe you can change it. But in leagues, there are teams that never win. And there are teams that are always contenders. And I believe that attitude has a lot to do with it. I absolutely believe that attitude of an organization,

believe that attitude of an organization do you take shortcuts do you not take shortcuts do you place a commitment on winning i think it matters i think it absolutely matters i don't know that's a little bit too yearbook for me i still think that there there can be some value in strategically losing as a team as an organization you? You know what? I buy that. I do buy that. I think there are some years you just can't win. But there are ways that you have to even go about that. All I can say is the best companies I've ever worked for, that attitude was always there.

And I think that the best organizations, even if you're in a year where you're not expected to be great, the organization can set a standard that says this is not our year, but that doesn't mean that your coaching staff and your players have to accept it. You have to make it as hard as possible

on your opponents. You have to still set a high to make it as hard as possible okay on your opponents you have to still set a high standard that's all let me try to give you an example here from on the ice do players always try to win draws or do they deliberately lose some yeah but the thing is that it's different like even if you deliberately lose some there's a plan yes exactly and deliberately losing a game can be part of a plan to winning whether it gives you favorable advantage in the standings a better opponent in the opening round of the playoffs whatever i'm just saying i i don't necessarily disqualify it out of turn i know it's really distasteful to a lot of people listening right now like to your point elliot it's bad karma for your organization you want players every team to try to win every single night but just as we see players deliberately maybe just

take it down to face-offs deliberately losing face-offs as far as a strategy. Yeah, that's not the same thing. I think losing can be a strategy as well. Losing can be a strategy, but you cannot create the attitude in your organization that losing is okay. You can't. And I've thought a lot about that year in Buffalo and wondered about, is there a hangover? Like Arizona, they decided that they were going to try to change the way

they did business the last few years. Now, there's a lot of controversy about that, obviously, with the draft stuff, and they got punished for it. But they definitely did try to change the way they do things I looked at that quarterback last night and I just said Jalen Hurts and I just said man like he's saying he's sitting here thinking right now on the sideline do we really care about winning and maybe in the future this will all work out and we've gone way too far down a rabbit hole on this, but I just think that you have to be careful with that. You never want to create in your players

who need to be driven to win that losing is okay. You have to be very careful going down that road. Did the Pittsburgh Penguins get Mario Lemieux, arguably the best player who ever played the game, who led the organization to two Stanley Cups? Did the Pittsburgh Penguins get Mario Lemieux by winning or losing? And not just losing, deliberately losing. Did that have a negative effect on the organization? How long did it take them after that? Well, he was drafted in 85 85 they won their first Stanley Cup in

1991 first of all history has proven that that was the right move there's there's no question about that I'm not arguing it but did they have ridiculous culture that it took them a long time to fix yeah and they fixed it by saying listen there's this once in a lifetime opportunity that we have and we're gonna get we're going to get this guy. They did not. No. This is not anything against Mario Lemieux. They did not fix it when he was drafted.

They did not. They didn't. Like, Jeff, it took them a long— Like, he was—and this is not ripping Lemieux. He was huge for them. He did everything that they could ever do. He saved their team multiple times. But it didn't just fix when Mario Lemieux ever do. He saved their team multiple times.

But it didn't just fix when Mario Lemieux showed up. It took them a long time. Could they have won those Stanley Cups without Mario Lemieux? No, of course not. I'm not arguing that. It took, what, six seasons? There was a lot of pain. Six seasons to win the Stanley Cup. There was a lot of, it was more than that.

I think it was seven. Well, it doesn't matter. It was six, seven whatever okay okay and i but i'm not blaming lemieux i don't think this has anything to do with lemieux craig simpsons talked about it their culture was really screwed up the penguins culture yes why because they've been losing for so long right and then mario came in and they got him all the penguins fans can tell us if we're right or wrong lemieux didn't fix it right away and again it has nothing to do with lemieux when a great player shows up if your culture is terrible then it takes more than just a great player to fix it. If you watch the Jordan documentary, okay, he gets drafted to Chicago and he goes into the room at that first training camp.

And what does he see all the players doing drugs? And he realizes, Oh boy, like this is real trouble here. And he gets injured and they don't want him to come back because they want to rest their future superstar and he gets so mad that he forces his way back onto the court and it took Jordan I think he was drafted I think it took him seven years same thing to win his first title and obviously he changed it for the better but the Bulls had a culture that they had to get out of.

They were losers, and they had a drug issue, and it takes a long time to get out of it. And that's all my point is that I think that even if you get a great player, if your organization has bad culture, it takes more than the great player to pull you out of it. You have to change the culture. You warmed up. I'm warmed up.

Ready for the new year. I'm ready for the new year. Happy new year, everyone. Hope you enjoyed the four hour show and thank you to all of those who listen to all or a good chunk of it. Yes. Congratulations. You made it all the way to the end and we thank you for your efforts uh here's another four hour show and by that we

mean probably a cozy 30 to 45 welcome to 31 thoughts the podcast I really like preach. I really have to laugh because that was awesome. What you just did by totally taking the wheels off the wagon. So a little inside baseball here. Last night in our group text, Elliot says, we should talk about the North Division. We should talk about the Canadian Division on the podcast tomorrow. So sure. So little intro.

Let's get it going. I get about, what, 15 seconds into this, Frej? And boom, you pull the pin out of the grenade and take it into a totally different conversation. But here we are now, Frej. So finally, here we are. The Canadian division, the North division. It's all the Canadian teams, one night only. You know, this is it.

Enjoy it, Canada. But should it be it? I want to drill down on some of these teams here in a couple of seconds but just the phenomenon of the north division do you think this should be a one and done no i don't and i did think that initially and i'm starting to come around on it and there's a lot of different reasons je Jeff. One of the things that I've been kind of focusing on, and I'm still working on some stuff about it is, I think that the NHL is going to chase revenues more than it ever has. I think over the last few years,

there've been people in the league and some of them are teams and some of them are agents and some of them are players who feel that the league has not done enough to chase revenues whether it's jersey ads which i think are going to come eventually to promoting players everything and i don't think it's one person's fault i think it's the overall culture of the sport that's going to change. But they haven't maximized their ability to push revenues, much to the frustration of some of the teams, players, and people. And that's going to have to change. There's been so much damage done here, not just to hockey, but to everything, that there's going to be no choice.

done here not just to hockey but to everything that there's going to be no choice and one of the reasons that there are going to be people to push for the canadian division i think is going to be revenues like after that whole argument we just had about culture and things like that i don't believe from a personal point of view that a Canadian team should be gifted, if that's the term you want to use, a spot in the Final Four. That is against my nature. I don't think you should be gifted anything. I think it should be earned, not given.

But as someone said to me, how much greater would the revenue of the sport be if you knew you had a Canadian team in the final four? Okay, pause here for one second. How many times have we discussed either on this podcast, on television, socially with friends, people in the NHL, the idea that if you're a player and you're concerned about escrow and you're concerned about hockey related revenue and getting as much money in the system as possible, if you're a player whose team has just been eliminated from the Stanley Cup playoffs, the team you should cheer for is Toronto. And hope that a team like Toronto or the Rangers or whomever,

large market teams have lengthy runs because that brings just what you're talking about there, more money into the coffers. I listen to how you're describing this in the NHL chasing revenue more so than ever, and I'm saying to myself, this is what we've been talking about, ensuring that the highest revenue producers go the furthest in the playoffs and creating a structure around which that can happen consistently. That's exactly what I think people are thinking about here.

And to take it one step further, considering the Toronto Maple Leafs as the prime revenue generator and writer of the largest revenue sharing check per season, believed to be in the neighborhood of $25 million, many might look at this and say, we need to get the Maple Leafs as deep as possible here for everybody concerned. And this is one way of doing it.

So that's one of the reasons that people are talking about is that, you know, should that happen for revenue reasons you say to a canadian team you get one spot in the stanley cup semi-final i have to say it's counterintuitive to me my initial reaction was as a person i will i'm not crazy about it. As a Sportsnet employee, I love it. What about as just a hockey fan? Yeah, you know, I think hockey fans out there can decide that for them.

It's not for me for that reason, but hockey fans might think differently. The U.S. hockey fans will hate it. They love that it's been so long since we won. 93, 1993, 1993. They love reminding us of that. So there's a couple other arguments to it. Not only does it increase your playoff revenues,

in theory, and I think likely in practice. Also, there's two other things. Number one, we have, after this year, five years left in our TV deal. Will that make your Canadian TV deal more valuable if you're guaranteed a Canadian team in the final four? I think yes. Yes.

Okay, so there's another revenue reason. And the other thing too that was pointed out to me is, now I should say, this doesn't mean the Canadian teams never play the US teams. I don't think that's what anybody wants. Maybe you don't play your US teams as often, but you still play your Canadian teams. What this person said to me is, when we came out of the lockout in 0405, there was a really rivalry-based schedule. And eventually they went away with that. But what a couple of people said to me is they're like a

hybrid version that you could come up with which means you don't necessarily play the same teams eight times a year but you know maybe you get every other year you get an extra game with the rangers or the black hawks or teams that maybe aren't your rivals but are good draws like and this is the one i admit i don't have an incredible answer to but what if you said to teams in the u.s you get one fewer time against a canadian team that your fans don't care about but maybe one more game against an american team your fans would care about would that be revenue sensible and i think for canadian's squads too if you're not going to be playing them as often based on this hybrid model does that thirst get quenched if every time

to say for sake of example uh the oilers and the flames if every time they play it's not just a one and done but it's a back to back-back i'm willing to listen to every everything the travel issue is an issue the time zones are an issue all these things can be a massage but how much favor does this curry amongst canadian teams oh i'm sure it probably carries a lot of favor if you know you've got a one in seven chance, basic math of reaching the final four, you like that over one in 16, right? Or I guess it would be two in 16, one eighth.

Sorry, I was told there'd be no math when I got into sports journalism. I like the idea. I haven't thought of it as a long-term situation what percent of our listeners do you think are going to say they hate this i don't think as bitty as you would think i'd be curious i don't like it's not as if you're gifting a stanley cup birth to a canadian squad now i understand a final four is a is a final four but this isn't like at the beginning of the pod i was trying to do a thing about you know the expansion in 1967

and there were two teams right there was the was the solvent six or the arbitrary six, whatever you want to call them, and the second six, and each were put in their own division. So those expansion six, they were gifted a berth into the Stanley Cup final. That's why you saw the St. Louis Blues, three seasons in a row, bam, bam, bam. Hey, wow, look at St. Louis.

Three times. Were they really the second best team in the NHL? Blues, three seasons in a row, bam, bam, bam. Hey, wow, look at St. Louis. Three times. Were they really the second best team in the NHL? No, of course, not even close. But that division was gifted a Stanley Cup berth. Didn't do anything with it, but it was gifted. I don't think that's this situation. I don't think people will hate it as much as you think. There will be some.

And look, even if you're a team like, we all know what happens with the Florida Panthers when Montreal comes to town or when the Maple Leafs come to town. Will you still schedule those trips? Like, for example, they go over Christmas or they go over spring break. Like, be smart.

Be smart with your schedule. I don't hate it. I don't. I like it and it makes sense. It makes sense financially for a team that needs to recoup money ASAP. What do you think? People like it, yes or no?

You know, like I said, to me it's counterintuitive. Like I'm a big believer in the earn not given mantra and there's something to me internally about being guaranteed a spot in the semifinals that to me personally i'm not crazy about but is it better for the league if that happens and professionally it would be a lot better for us without question you know how much better would it be for our tv package if that happened and we'd all be

more excited going to work every year knowing that you're getting a canadian team in the final four i i think everybody would be more excited so then you look at the north division we'll park that conversation for a second and i think one of the reasons why this is so attractive is not just the games themselves which will be emotionally charged and too bad we can't have packed arenas for this because it would be spectacular but oh man Canucks Twitter Oilers Twitter Leafs Twitter oh man hey Frege this is poised to be an insane season of you know every day waking up and taking a handful of ridiculous pills when you log on to hockey twitter of all the canadian teams and which one are you most

curious about right now oh i i think it's toronto because of expectation i think so i think there is an expectation that this is going to be a big year. The Joe Thornton thing I find is really interesting. You know, we talked about the possibility that he would end up with Matthews and Marner, which is what they're going to start with. I believe they talked to him about that when they recruited him, that they saw a vision for him there. I think the Canadian division is going to be fantastic, but I think this is a huge year for the Maple Leafs.

I really do. There's an expectation that they have to win a round. Don't you think it's more than that? I'm talking about the bare minimum. Like the bare minimum is they got to win a round. Bare minimum is win a round. Yes. What has to go right for that to happen?

And if it goes wrong, what happened? And is the easy answer to both those questions the goaltending? Well, I think Anderson's going to have a good year. I do. It's a contract year. Now, I think the language here you have to be careful with. I don't think they tried to trade him, but I think they got asked about him.

And they told him that. They told him that they got asked about him. It got out. I think they decided if they were going to trade him, it was going to have to be an incredible deal because most of his cash is already paid. This year, his salary is minimal by hockey standards now that his bonus is gone, he knows all that.

And he's playing for a contract. I think he has a monster year. The guy who I really think is going to become a critical, even more critical part of this team this year, health, everything like that, is Muzzin. I think this is going to be a huge year for Jake Muzzin. I'm beginning to think that Jake Muzzin. I think this is going to be a huge year for Jake Muzzin. I'm beginning to think that Jake Muzzin, and this is not a slight to John Tavares or anything like that,

but I'm beginning to think that Jake Muzzin is the true cap in the Toronto Maple Leafs. I think he's the guy a lot of players go to. In what sense? He's the guy that everyone talks to. He's one. He plays tough. He's vocal.

Someone told me he's a guy who creates things where everybody's invited to. I mean, obviously pre COVID, I don't want to start like some crazy. Let's go bowling. But before this, yeah, before this all hit,

he was the guy who was really like, sort of like, okay, we're all doing this together or you're all coming over to my place. I think Muzzin's going to have a huge year. When you focus on the Maple Leafs, you got to focus on the big guys. Shoot me your thoughts quick on Mitch Marner specifically.

The weight of expectation last year with the big contract, the off season from hell, all of it. What's expectation for Mitch Marner this year? I mean, there are many that look at him and say, you know, this is a guy, and specifically playing in the North Division, what's expectation for Mitch Marner this year? I mean, there are many that look at him and say, you know, this is a guy and specifically playing in the North division. And you look around the blue lines and you look

around some of the net minders and you say, you know, this guy might have a shot at winning the art Ross. What's your expectation of Mitch Marner? I just think a lot of these guys know that if Toronto doesn't have a good year this year there's going to be changes and Kyle Dubas he wanted to hold on to the big four look like Matthew's not getting

traded Tavares is not getting traded if they ever have to do it it's one of two guys right of that big four so they I, I mean, this group knows that if they don't do something this year, big changes are coming. They know it. So I think they're all going to be determined. But they have a good team. They should be walking into there

and I'm sure they are saying, we can win this Canadian division. Well, that's the expectation. Like you look at all the prognostications. It's Toronto and then everybody slots in differently based on who's reporting or who's speculating. You mentioned Thornton off the top too. And I remember Anthony Stewart made this point

on Hockey Central, and you've talked about it as well. The idea that part of the recruiting for Joee thornton was join the toronto maple leaves play a fourth line role sub in and out with jason spezza let's try to win a stanley cup it had to be more significant and now we see it there's no doubt that that is true that joe thornton i think was ready to leave san j. He was devastated last year. He was not traded at the deadline. But you have to say to him, okay, this is what I'm used to. This is what I know.

How are you going to get me out of this comfort zone? And I think that's exactly what they did. I think he knew from the beginning that he was going to get a chance to start with those two guys. Also around the North Division, Vancouver's in an interesting position right now with their head coach. What can you tell us with Travis Green, who's in the final year of his deal?

Well, Green is a gambler, and he's a gambler because he likes to gamble, and that's just his mindset. I think he believes in himself. To me, it's a good sign for their relationship that he wants a guy like Hamannik there and they brought Hamannik in. And I think they will sign him when Furlan goes on LTIR. So that says to me, the relationship between Benning and Green is good. And I've heard it's

good. I heard they really do listen to each other and there is a good respect there. They have a good working relationship. So, and this is obviously proof of it. But Green being a gambler, he always bets on himself, which is an important characteristic to have. And I think he believes that there's a market for him that is at a certain number and a certain term. And he's going to fight for that. Now, I think in Vancouver, there's no question, like a lot of teams teams they've been hit hard by the pandemic and i think it's kind of crushed their business a bit and they're they've made that clear to him and i think he understands that but i still think he's a person who says this is what i believe i'm worth i think the other thing too is vancouver's laid off a lot of people on staff

yep it's been unfortunate they're including a person i'd like to shout out stephanie maniago who was in their pr department for a long time and was great at her job one of several people around the league that you know lost their jobs not because they weren't good at it but simply because of the economics and finances of the world right now and i'm sure there's a sensitivity to that, that we have to be careful about what we're doing here as we're laying off people. I just think at the end of the day, Green has a belief in what he's worth

and he will stand to that. And that's what the Canucks have to realize. This is not a person who lacks confidence. This is not a person who lacks belief in themselves. And he won't sell himself short. And that's where I think we are. What happens to his negotiating power if the

Vancouver Canucks take a step back like many people think they would? Like last year was a wonderful season for Vancouver. So many things hit and he's had the luxury of having someone who's been one of the best goaltenders in the NHL for the past couple of seasons.

We all know the relationship between the goalie and the coach. Show me a good goalie and I'll show you a coach, etc. That guy's gone now. There is an expectation that, listen, Vancouver did spectacular in the bubble last year. It was a great season for Vancouver at every single level. There's a wide speculation and belief that they will take a step backwards. Does that hurt Travis Green's negotiating?

Not if you're a confident negotiator. And also, I look at it as an opportunity. I said this on Vancouver Radio last week. Some people are just really negative, Jeff. You and me, we're the optimists of the world. Amol is the negative person on this podcast you and I are optimistic uh like if I was starting with Pedersen and Hughes yeah I'd feel pretty good about myself now I realize you have holes and that's why they signed Hamannik and you know Markstrom was a more of a certainty and goal than what they've got but that doesn't mean

it can't be good I think in a year where it's going to be really hard with a compressed schedule and really intense games, the way Vancouver played in the playoffs last year with that group, some of whom, some guys who were really also too maligned, it's a good sign for them. I would just think if I was as confident in my ability as I think Green is, I would just believe in my ability to squeeze the most out of this team. And the other thing too is the Canucks know or should know what they have. If the team takes a step back, is it roster or is it coach? They'll know better than anybody else. But they've invested in Green.

He was their coach in Utica and now he's their coach there. And, you know, I always like the known more than the unknown when I'm investing millions in it, right? Speaking of investing millions on the known, what they do know is this is their last year of Pedersen and Hughes on their ELCs. Yes. Like right now, it's one of the best gifts in the NHL.

There's a few teams that have gifts. This is one of them. This is a huge one for the Vancouver Canucks. Where do you position the Vancouver Canucks with the rest of the Canadian teams knowing that this is probably going to be a step back season for them? I don't know. Why does it have to be a step back for them? Lost the goaltender. That's a huge one. Yeah, I understand all that. You might be totally right, and their super negative Twitter fan base

might end up being right. But this Canadian division, there's some good teams there, but there's no great team here. They all have flaws. If I was the Canucks, I'd say, okay, I'm going into this with Pettersson and Hughes leading the way. We just had a good playoff,

and this year is going to be like a sprint. It's not an 82-game marathon. It's like a playoff in a lot of ways. A lot of our guys just stepped up in that situation yes i understand the questions i get it you lost tanov you lost markstrom those are big losses big losses but i expect petterson to be better petterson stayed in vancouver the whole offseason yep you. You expect Hughes going to be even better. Horvat's going to be even better.

Okay, maybe they're going to end up worse and I'm totally wrong here. It's just my outlook. I prefer to be optimistic. I look at all the things they have. They still have a good in that division. Why can't Vancouver win it? Are they that much worse than anybody else?

It seems to me like it's Toronto and then everybody else. That'll go over well. No, I know, but listen, I think everybody's on the same page about this one. Expectation for the Maple Leafs is win that division, period. And if you look at

the construction of all the teams, that's the one consistency amongst pretty much all predictions. Like there are some, you know, local market hot takes, Hey, are this team's our team's going to win.

But really by and large, it's the Maple Leafs. And then everybody else is fighting for spots. I don't think that's hot takey. I, you know what I got to tell you, like, I don't think it's Toronto and everybody else.

I think Toronto should win it, but do you think there's that big a division between them and everyone else? I do. You do, eh? I do. That's at Jeff Merrick on Twitter. Go for it.

Let me drag you into drama while we're at it here on the podcast. Pierre-Luc Dubois on the Columbus Blue Jackets. Yeah. Two-year contract extension. You may look at that and say, well, hang on the podcast. Pierre-Luc Dubois on the Columbus Blue Jackets. Yeah. Two-year contract extension. You may look at that and say, well, hang on a second. If the guy wants to get traded,

why is he signing an extension with the team he wants to leave? What's happening in Columbus with the player and the team? Well, I think that one of the things that has happened here is that this has been going on longer than we realized.

One player told me that they knew last year that this has been going on longer than we realized. One player told me that they knew last year that this was a player who was not long-term happy. And the inference I got was that Dubois simply wants a bigger stage. I've heard from a couple different people now to say it's solely about John Tortorella is kind of understating it. Yes, the relationship has been a battle from time to time. Dubois has been upset about it from time to time, but Dubois has also said at times that Tortorella has been very good for bringing the best out of him. I think the toughest thing here for the Blue Jackets, Jeff, is that if you'll remember in his draft,

everybody thought they were taking Pouliarvi. Correct. There was so much at stake on this pick. One of the things that happened was the Columbus team taking Pouliarvi ended any chances of P.K. Subban being a Vancouver Canuck. There was a trade on the table where pk suban was going to vancouver as long as dubois was available when the canadians picked and that's and it got scuttled because vancouver and the canadians realized that he wasn't going to get

there montreal was picking five there was a couple of biggies in that top five. Edmonton had something with the Rangers as well because the Rangers wanted Clayton Keller. Yeah. And we're looking to do a deal with the Oilers to move into the first round and into that position. And there were some big names going to Edmonton with it. And it all changed.

Like you're right, a lot of things changed the minute Columbus said Pierre-Luc Dubois instead of Yassi Pouliarvi. And also there was something going on with Edmonton, Calgary, and Montreal. There was something else too. I wrote about it. I have to go back and check my notes.

They had a three-way over their draft picks. So many people then would look at Pierre-Luc Dubois and say, well, listen, if you want to leave, why the deal? I think what happened is, you know, Columbus Yarmouk kicked a line and said yesterday that they had a two-year deal, which he signed a three-year deal and an eight-year deal. I think Dubois just told them he didn't want an eight-year deal.

And so they signed the two-year deal because everybody agrees the best thing to do is play like not playing doesn't make any sense right but dubois made it very clear he still wants to be traded now i've asked if this is something that can be fixed and i've been told probably not that it's not something that's going to the player is going to change his mind over kekalainen will be the interesting one here two years ago he knew he was going to lose bobrovsky and panarin he held them all year he said you know what we're going to go for it and they won their first playoff round in history when they beat tampa i think there's a lot of people who think he's going to do the same thing here they think first of all it's very difficult to make trades this year,

right now, especially with all the quarantines. Everybody thinks about Montreal because they know Bergevin loved them. And you can have all the Canadians and Columbus fans debate this. If Montreal wants Dubois, what's it going to cost them? Nick Suzuki? Are you going to make that deal if you're Montreal? It'll be one of the centers for sure. It'll be Suzuki or Kotkiniemi.

Or both. Going away, absolutely. You know what Yarmouk's going to ask for? He's going to ask for a lot. Secondly, if you make that deal now, you know what? Both players are going to not be able to play for 14 days. Yep.

So I think there's a lot going on here. Most people seem to think unless he gets a deal he can't say no to that he's going to hold them for this year. Explain the structure of the deal to people. Well, it's 3-3-5 and 6-3-5. Well, one of the reasons that guys want less this year is that it's three three five and six three five well one of the reasons that guys want less this year is that it's 20 right and then the 10 hold back so what elliot's talking about is 20 guaranteed escrow that is that's where it's capped the 20 off so the guys want to have

as little money as small a paycheck this season as possible Most players are happy to take less this year and more as the escrow decreases. Like if you look at John Marino's contract that he signed the other day, it's similar to it picks up as we go because you'd rather have more of your money paid when there's 6% escrow as opposed to 20% escrow. This is the reverse of what we've seen coming out of the 2004 lockout with instead of back diving deals, now they're front diving deals. Yeah.

This is completely flipped. Zdeno Chara, Washington Capitals, what happened with Big Z and the Boston Bruins? Well, I think the biggest thing that happened was, was Chara going to play or not? You know, one of the things I heard last year was when the Bruins got knocked out by Tampa, those press conferences,

the post-game Zoom conferences, were really down. Like, you know the Bruins care. Like, those guys really care. But they were really down. Like, devastated. And some people said to me that that was a sign that they really believed that the Bruins players knew it was coming to the end with that group.

That maybe they realized that they weren't going to have too many more chances together. And, you know, because Rask had left the bubble and nobody really knew what his future was going to be. And I wonder if they suspected that maybe that was going to be. And I wonder if they suspected that maybe that was going to be it for Chara, that those players looked at two teammates and said, wow, like this is the end for this group. And, you know, Krejci's only got one year left and Bergeron has two. And, you know, people are kind of like, you know, what are these guys going to want to do?

So I think the Bruins told Chara, as Chara said, you know, he was going to be not a full-time guy. He might be their seventh D. Because I think the Bruins looked at it like, not that we don't value Chara, but we've got to find out what we have here. You know, the time is going to come when he's not going to be available, and we've got to start pushing some kids into these roles. And I think the first thing Chara had to decide was,

is he going to play or not? If he wasn't going back to Boston, was he going to play? And I heard he decided that right around Christmas, like a little bit before Christmas, and he said, okay, I'm going to play. And then it came down to where are we going to go? And he chose Washington. And I think there were a lot of teams there. I think, you know, obviously Montreal was there, but Canada was not an option because of the border. I have to think Florida was there. I think they were a team that really wanted them, but I'm sure there were a lot of teams that really wanted them.

I can't blame them for going to Washington. That's a really good setup. Worst practice position of any player in the NHL is Washington Capitals goaltenders who have to stand in front of Ovechkin,

Chara, you could probably throw John Carlson into that mix as well. Shots in practice every day. No thanks. How do you think this is a fit with the Caps? Oh, I think he's going to do great there. And would it surprise you at all

if he cars out a bigger role than we think, like maybe top four? Wouldn't surprise me at all, nor would it surprise me if he plays a million more years on evergreen deals. Yep. Just one year, one year, one year, one year. Honestly, when it comes to Chara and anything he does physically in hockey,

nothing surprises me, nor should it surprise anybody. I'm with you on this. Lula Amarillo, Matthew Barzal. By the time this podcast is out, this section may have been removed because there's a deal and the Islanders are on their way. What's the holdup here?

There was a bit of excitement while we were recording this, Jeff, because Barzal was on the Islanders training camp roster. And basically what happened was there's no deal, at least as we do this. And he just went in to take his physical.

He's been there. What I'd heard was three times six, but I'd heard this earlier in the summer. Well, what's the summer? I'd heard this earlier in December, I guess. And I don't know if that's true or not. You know, Lula Amorello gives no information. I think when you negotiate with him, you tend not to give any information. So it's been quiet, but I heard some people say

they were expecting like something like three times six. I mean, we'll see if that's what it is. Does he drop down to two? The Islanders have a tight cap situation. You know, as we know, they tried to move Andrew Ladd's contract. Boy Chuck, you know, quote unquote retired. It's, you know, unfortunate for him i mean that guy

as we talked about true gamer i heard the other contract that they've been trying to move which is a bit easier to handle from a cap point of view is thomas hickey you know thomas hickey has this year and next year uh for this year uh half of his salary has been paid in a bonus. So there's $1.25 million in cash for this year and $2.5 million for next year. There's no bonus, but they've been trying to move it with a pick. And I do want to admit, whatever happens with Thomas Hickey, I mean, he had a really tough year last year,

personally and professionally. So I hope whatever happens works out for him. I think that's what they've been kind of trying to do. I think Barzell wanted term. I think he is very happy to be an Islander, but the number, and I'm sure that I have no doubt he was using Marner as a comparable. The Islanders just can't do that right now. They don't have the capability to do it.

So I think it's probably a short-term bridge like i said i'd heard three times six i don't know if that'll end up being the the end number but you know also it's possible it could go down to two years i mean who knows i don't know the answer i all i've just heard is that the agent is jp barry who's not saying anything is that him and lamorello are just grinding away at it they have you know tried to clear some room uh as well for Matthew Barzal uh Devon Taves goes to the Colorado Avalanche uh that's some cap savings we saw Columbus do the same thing with uh with New Navarra with Murray uh to open up space for Pierre-Luc Dubois so So they're, I guess, still working on it.

I would imagine if people are listening right now and saying, well, how come the Marner deal or something similar to it wouldn't work for the Islanders right now? Elliot, to your point, if you could expand on the idea that buying UFA years are more expensive, so the cap hit will go up a shorter-term deal, much like we see Tampaa do all the time and they've done it again they did it with point is surga chev and sorelli you want to keep the cap

hit as low as possible right now absolutely you do absolutely you do and also because but i think also as we said before jeff i think there's like this is going to happen with vancouver too i think with petterson and hughes like our guy's going to want to wait like the cap's not going anywhere for a couple years our guy's going to want to wait until the cap goes up a couple more things really quickly uh dylan strome two-year deal three million dollar aav and with no kirby doc and no jonathan taves he goes to the top of the list in the middle in chic, Elliot. It's going to be a tough year in Chicago. And let's send our best to Jonathan Taves. I hope everything works out for him,

both physically and mentally. I think when you're not certain of what's going on with you, it takes an enormous mental toll. So I want to wish him the best, but it's going to be a really tough year in Chicago. Really tough year. I mean, the thing for Strom is, you know, Strom's going to become their number one center now.

He'll learn, you know, he'll understand how hard it is. Look at the guys he's going to be playing every night. Oh, steady diet of Pat Kane. Yeah, like guys on Dallas, guys in Tampa, Dubois. It's going to be tough. It's going to be really tough but he'll learn from it and he's going to have 88 by his side there's going to be a lot of that there's going to be a lot of Patrick Kane with him

okay so that's it for this podcast expect more as the days and weeks go on Elliot anything to conclude with? I used to laugh and I not laugh from a Negative point of view But just because it's funny

Because I don't like to make fun of other Reporters like everybody does their job Right and I respect that but When you get the tweets about oh I'm In the best shape of my life or Here's who just scored in Training camp I would Just laugh because it's like oh oh my God, this stuff.

But I was never happier to see it than I was this year. I understand that. There's still one phrase that I would love to banish from sports from all time. And again, I'm happy we're hearing it because it means that the NHL is back. Going forward. Yeah, you know, David Schultz, who used to write for the Globe and Mail, whenever I say going forward or moving forward, he'd say stop using those phrases.

So you and David Schultz are the same. Great Hawaiian shirts on Schultz. Going forward as opposed to what? The other great one is general consensus, as opposed to what other type of consensus would there be? The Department of Redundancy Department? Correct. Welcome to the minutia of my brain.

So the NHL is back, and so is my stupid noodle here. Thanks so much for joining us on the podcast. Expect more soon. We are happy to be back. And Taking Us Out, and as always, big thanks to our producer, Amal Delich. Taking Us Out is a bit of a classic from our producer's archive. Glory Glory, three-piece band from Halifax, Nova Scotia, released their sophomore album in 2011.

From that three-track EP, here's a self-titled track, You Need a Heart to Live, by Glory Glory on 31 Thoughts to Podcast. I need your heart, your thoughts tonight I need your heart, your hope tonight I'm out. In your heart, in your heart, where I want to go.