The Athletic Hockey Show - Can the Toronto Maple Leafs win with Matt Murray, Jason Robertson signs extension with Dallas Stars, over/unders on season goal totals

Episode Date: October 6, 2022

Ian and Sean are joined by The Athletic's Jonas Siegel to discuss the Toronto Maple Leafs, and if the addition of Matt Murray could help them get over the hump this season. Then, they chat about news overnight of Jason Robertson signing a four-year extension with the Dallas Stars. Next, Jesse Granger jumps on for "Granger Things" to discuss season goal total lines for a handful of players, thoughts on the latest with Hockey Canada and more.Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail] or leave a VM [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshowSubscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3BKz27u Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the athletic hockey show. We are back. It is the Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. As always, Ian Medley-Shaun-Mackadie with you for the next hour. And we got a jam-pack show as training camps are well underway. In fact, we're under a week until the regular season starts for most teams, 24 hours for a couple of teams in Europe. I'll tell you what, Sean, we're going to start with a topic that,

listen, you and I have debated this in the summertime, Matt Murray. In fact, I remember the day. that this deal went down and I was texting you with some information that I thought was going to come out. And you were, let's just say you were a little skeptical. We had, just to remind people, we had a heads up that this was coming. Like for a couple of days, all the insiders were saying, you know, it looks like this is going to come together. And people were debating what would the trade look like? How much salary are the senator going to retain? It's got to be 50%. Right. Are we going to get another team involved? Maybe get it to 75%.

And you texted me and you said, I think this is the deal. This is what I'm hearing. And I texted you back. I said if that's the trade, what did I say? Did I say they should fire Kyle Dubas? You did. If that's the trade. Yeah.

And then within a few hours, the trade came out and it was exactly what you had said. And obviously, they didn't fire Kyle Dubas, but I was not, it did not have a positive reaction. And this was me with my leaf fan. on. This is not my objective media version of me. This was just me as a fan going, oh, man, this trade stinks. And then after that, I did have some smart people reach out to me and say, you know, here's why maybe it makes a little more sense. And obviously, we got more information. So I'm not still sitting there on my initial reaction. But I don't know if I certainly haven't tipped into the positive zone yet. And that's what I'm hoping we do today. I'm, I'm

Today is all about let's give me some optimism. Let's make me think that this isn't going to be the disaster that costs a otherwise Stanley Cupworthy roster a chance to do something in the playoffs. Well, that's the perfect way for us to bring in Jonas Siegel. No pressure, Jonas. Yeah, no pressure. You just have to convince a very skeptical. My entire mental well-being for the next extended period. It is based on you selling me on Matt Murray.

It's going to be great. Huh? Good. All right. That was a good interview. Thank you, Jonas. We don't need to get into any more nuance. I'm good.

But he's looked good though, right? In the preseason, let's be honest, he's looked good. It's looked really good. Yes, but it's like, what do you take from a couple preseason games? But let me say this. So I've spent the last couple months ever since the trade, ever since actually before, because Ian, you reached out to me about us combining on a story about Matt Marie coming to the Leafs. I was like, there's no way. This is crazy. And you and I

kind of batted around ideas and what the deal could look like. And the deal was not obviously what we thought it was going to be. We thought it was the Leafs that kind of had some leverage in this trade. I still don't know why they didn't have leverage in the trade. But I've been trying to think, like, was I too harsh? And I've kind of come to the idea. Like, I don't know how you could not be skeptical of that deal when it happens because how could you not? Like if you're just going to say, well, yeah, it's a smart gamble. Like, it makes a lot of sense. Like, he's won a couple of cups. I just don't think you're kind of living in reality of what's gone on in the last couple years. That said, could it work out? Yeah. I mean, like, we see goalies fluctuate all the time.

And as Sean points out, this is a really good team. This is a really good defensive team, which doesn't really seem to, like it hasn't really gotten through that this is one of the better defensive teams in the NHL just because of their history. So you think a better defensive team, a team that possesses the puck more, teams that's not going to give up as much, can Matt Murray be the guy, you know, who backstops a team like that deep into the playoffs? Maybe. Like, it's conceivable.

I mean, we saw, like, I'm just thinking NFL. Like, we saw Jimmy Garoppolo has gotten to a Super Bowl. Jared Goff has gotten to a Super Bowl. Like, sometimes, like, good teams, you can just have, like, a, semi-week link and you can go pretty deep. What do you think? Did I convince you? Huh? But he's got two rings already. This, this, this. This is the point. This, he isn't, uh, Jared Gough. He's, uh, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's, who's won two Super Bowl rings? Eli Manning. He's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's,

manning to a T. Exactly. Do you trust Eli Manning? But the only thing with that, Ian, is like, that's a long time ago. Like, that's, what is that? 16 and 17? Like, like, like, five years. That's not that like 16, 17, that's when Matthews is like just coming to the league. A lot has gone down since then. And I'm honestly more concerned with injuries than I am with performance. Like I think he might end up just being fine, like a round league average, maybe a little better, maybe like maybe a little worse. It's more like, can he stay healthy that is a concern for me. Like if it's like, if you're doing the pie chart, that's a bigger worry for me. You talk about it being a long time.

Put it this way. The last time Matt Murray won a Stanley Cup, the team that he beat in the conference finals, the conference finals to get there was the Ottawa Senators. Yes. That's a long time ago. So, man, I, the quote that stood out to me when this deal initially went down and we all sort of had, and I feel like it's safe to say the reaction around the hockey world was, I won't say universally, but very one-sidedly going, what are the Leafs doing here? And Kyle Dew

has basically said, somebody asked him, it may even have been you, Jonas. Why 25% on the salary? Because we know this is a big part of this deal. The Leafs are a capped out team. Matt Murray at 50% is a very different proposition than Matt Murray, where they're picking up 75, which is what they're doing. And somebody said, why not say to the auto senators, it's got to be 50-50. And he basically said, Pierre Dorian told me it was 25 or nothing. And so we chose 25 instead of nothing. And you talked about the leverage. That's the part I don't get. And Ian, maybe you can explain it to me because they had already, we knew Matt Murray wasn't coming back to Ottawa. They had already tried to trade him to Buffalo. They had that deal in place. He doesn't waive his no trade clause.

If Kyle Dubas just says, Pierre, it's 50-50 or nothing at all. Call me back if you want to do 50-50. And he hangs up the phone. what happens, I guess, to both teams. We really don't think Pierre Dorian has to call the Leafs back at that point. Yeah, it did feel like it was a bit of an untenable situation in Ottawa for Murray and the senators, right? Like, it did feel like there was almost no way they could roll back with this guy. So you're right. Like on some, on one level, I am surprised that Ottawa had any leverage in this situation.

But I don't know. Were the sabers the leverage? Like, would, it was, it was, it was Peridorian basically saying like, hey, I'll go back to Matt Murray and say, the Leafs walked away. So it's the Sabres or you're back in, in the HL next year and thinking that maybe he put, I mean, but there were draft picks for the draft that had already passed in that deal. So, man, I, that's, that's the piece that gets me. I mean, Ian, help you help me out here because you've watched Matt Murray for the last few years. Yeah. Is there any?

I keep hearing that, like, he was good for like six games last. year and that's what we're hanging our hat on. And meanwhile, there's three years of ugly-looking numbers. So Jonas has it exactly right. The issue is the injuries, more so than the consistency. You're going to find there's going to be stretches. Like I said, there was a six-week stretch, not six-game, six-week stretch. Where you have like a 9-40 save percentage and you're like, okay, there's the guy that won the two Stanley Cups.

It's not like Matt Murray came to Ottawa, spent two years here and he left and I was like, man, I never saw the guy that won two cups. No, I saw him. I saw him multiple times. It's just I also saw the injuries and I saw the, I guess the struggles to stay healthy. And that becomes the issue more than anything. But I think if you're Toronto, like ask yourself this, Jonas, and maybe just to refresh the listeners on this, it was a game of musical chairs. Jack Campbell went to Edmonton, Darcy Campbell. Kemper went to Washington.

The seats were starting to run out. So refresh your memory here, Jonas. Who are the other options for Toronto at the time? Well, I think the big one would have been Darcy Kemper, but did Darcy Kemper want to come to Toronto? Do you want to sign 32-year-old Darcy Kemper to this massive contract when Darcy Kemper is not like, I think Darcy Kemper is like a sure thing where you look at him and you're like, that guy, he's going to be Vasilevsky year after year after

year, they looked around and said, like, some of these other guys are kind of, yeah, like, I like the idea of kind of going lower risk. Like maybe I mentioned it quite a bit. I'm sure it got Sean excited trading for James Reimer, who was making 2-25 for just one year and getting another guy in free agency, maybe someone like Samsonov and just kind of going with a pair like that that doesn't cost a lot. Like, the other thing with Murray that we haven't mentioned, it's not just one year. It's two years.

Yeah. It's a two-year contract and a two-year commitment that. they've gone into. And at roughly the same price as Peter Marzik, a guy, they just gave up their first round pick to unload. So, you know, this. Because I know also some people look at it and they go, well, they got Matt Murray for nothing.

They didn't give up anything in the trade. In fact, they got a pick. If it doesn't work out, you're going to give up something to get this guy off the roster next year. Yes. Well, and so that's the other thing with Matt Murray is you look around and you look at what he could be, and you look at some of the options, like they could have kept Jack Campbell. That's another guy like Darcy Kampor, I mentioned.

They could have just signed Jack Campbell if they wanted to. And they signaled pretty early on that they didn't really seem interested in committing to Jack Campbell on that kind of contract, which I get. It's just like you look at the two guys that they've gone with and they're both rolling, they're both like kind of rolls of the dice because it's not like Samsonov, you're looking at it and you're like, that guy, in case, if Murray's not good, We know that guy is going to be great because, like, you look at his last couple years. It's like, well, he's kind of been, eh, Washington chose not to qualify this guy who was first round pick.

Like, it's not like he's like a real secure option. And Washington was, Washington wasn't a team with a ton of goaltending. It's not like he got squeezed out. Washington didn't have goaltending. That was their big weakness. They were a lot like the Leafs and they were like, get this guy out of here. The Leafs goaltending this year is two guys who got told to get lost by team. themes with bad goaltending last season.

Yes. Yes. And so the other thing I think you look at like their goaltending and a lot, this has been pointed a lot is like, well, their goaltending wasn't great last year. And like they had 150 points. Yes. But the goal is not 115 points. Like the goal is to win a cup.

And so I think one of the questions I've been asking myself is like, can Matt Murray and or Sampsona be good enough over four rounds to win a cup? And that's like an even bigger question that I have. absolutely no idea to the answer looking ahead into, I guess, the spring. Do you feel like with the Leafs in the front office and the people making the decisions? Do they put a lot of stock in those cup rings? Like, is there? Because we've talked about how Matt Murray, he's got the two cup rings, but it was five years ago.

I mean, just so many things could change. But is there a, do you get the sense that there's feeling in Toronto that, hey, when it comes down to it and we're playing another game seven, our guys are going to look and where they're going to realize they've got a guy in the net who's been there before, who's won it before, maybe he's even in the room selling everyone, hey, calm down, I got this, I've been here. Or is that just, you know, something that, you know, I think a lot of us feel is overrated, this magical, oh, you got to know how to win stuff. Do they buy into that in Toronto to any extent? Well, so you would know this because I can't remember how many years ago, but like that was like a thing when they would bring in guys who'd won cups. Like just like not even like start. They would bring in a guy who would want a cup. Like, this guy's want a cup. It's going to matter. They've loved Dave Boland so much.

They were going to just absolutely pay through the nose to keep that guy. Right. Like, Dave Boland won a cup. And I was like, does that matter, like, that he won a cup in Chicago? Jonathan Bernier is sitting there, like, with his ring that he won as a backup goalie. And we're supposed to think that that's something to get excited about. Right. But so, so this front office is obviously a lot different than those front offices.

But one of the things that Kyle Dubas did say when they made the trade, you mentioned that press conference. He mentioned the two cups and like how important they thought that was. And I think they do see some value to that. I know you're that doesn't, I don't know if that makes you feel good or bad, but like you look at the playoffs these last few years. Their goaltending has always just been a little yeah.

And like, eh is probably just being nice. Like there were points where it was like, oh, like they needed a save in game seven or from Frederick. They were one save away from beating both Tampa and Montreal. And they didn't get it. And Jack Campbell was really good against Montreal. I don't. One save in overtime.

I disagree with that. Like I think he was, he barely faced anything substance and he obviously was bettered by the best goal and maybe of this generation. Fair. But like, I don't think he faced a lot. And some of the goals he gave up. Anyway, the point is like, I think they look at Matt Murray and say, unlike the guys that we've had, like, unlike Jack Campbell, who they could have kept. This guy at least has a history of performing in the. biggest possible moments of the sport.

Is it a long time ago? Yes. But at least it's in there. Whereas with the other guys, it wasn't in there. And is that something that you bring in because you want a goalie who's had that experience? Or do you bring them in because you want the other 18 guys to know that they've got a goalie and feel that comment?

Good point. I think it's probably both. Like Shelton Keith mentioned last week or sometime during camp that he thought Matt Murray had like a presence about him. That's the word. use like a presence. I don't know if that means anything, but maybe it means something like in one of those games.

Like they played a really good game seven against Tampa. Like they just didn't, they needed one more goal or two more goals and they didn't get it. You know what this really reminds me of, not to bring this back to Ottawa? But Ottawa had those great teams in the early 2000s. And Patrick Lillim, like statistically was always really good. And there was this great debate where like,

the way you just spoke about Jack Campbell, was the way Ottawa fan spoke about Patrick LeLean, which was like, yeah, he wasn't the problem, but he also didn't steal them any games, right? Yes. And you need your goalie to steal you a game at some point in the playoffs. And also not lose you a game, like, not give up a goal. Like, there's some Frederick Caderson goals where you're like,

like that Columbus series, like one of those goals, you can't have that at that moment. Like, that goal cannot go in. And there were just too many moments like that with goaltenders, whether it's Anderson, whether there was Campbell, where you looked in and you're like, you just need a save. Like you need to keep,

you can feel in some of those games. Sean would feel it. They were tight in some of those games. And then you give up a goal like that and it's like, and so I guess the question is going to be like, can Matt Murray make those stops? And just like, because obviously this is a really great offensive team.

They're talented. They keep the puck. Maybe it's just like you just need to bring back the football thing. Like maybe you just kind of need like a game manager. who's not going to beat you. He's not going to steal anything for you. Maybe he's not going to do that, Ian, but maybe he's just not going to beat you.

So this podcast has turned into Trent Dilfer was Chris Osgood. Yes. That's what you need. It's the game manager. I got to ask you one more thing because we talked about the history and what they've seen with Matt Murray as far as winning the rings and all that.

Let's go back even further. The connection to the Sioux, to the Greyhounds, the connection even that there's there's somebody in the Leafs organization who like worked with Matt Murray as a kid like is this factoring into the decision maker they bringing in somebody like that because they knew him when he was eight years old like is are we going back that far yes so john elkin is there i get his title is a goal he's like something with goaltender evaluation and development and he like you mentioned he is he was literally the goalie coach that Kyle dubus hired in sue st. Marie to coach Matt Marie.

because John Elkin coach Matt Murray when he was a kid. So John Elkin, like, knows Matt Murray inside and out. He's seen him his whole life. He's watched him grow. He's watched him go up and down. Like there is nobody who knows Matt Murray, knows how he plays, knows his personality better than John Elkin. And he now has a very significant voice in that front office.

So you can connect the dots, I think. Like they're betting to some degree on someone that they know and believe can get back to what he once was. And you say they're betting on it as far as the season. Has Kyle Dubas bet his job on this trade? It kind of feels like that, doesn't it? I mean, like, I don't know. Like, because like they could, here's the thing, like, they could win a round and the

goaltending can just be okay. And Kyle Dubus will, should be fine, right? Like, the bar is, and the bar has become first round, which not really, isn't really a high bar at all. It's just has become a high bar because they've not been able to get past it. So yeah, like in some ways he is because if the goaltending blows up, if that is the reason that they do not get past the first round, if Murray gets hurt or Murray can't perform, Samsonov gets hurt, he can't perform,

it's going to come back to you and I will be talking about it, and we'll be talking about it, I'll be writing about it, the decision that they made in the summer of 2022 to bet on Matt Murray, to bet on Elias Samsonov for a team that was built to win a Stanley Cup. And that was a risky bet and it blew up in their face. could also look back and be like, wow, that was genius. Like they went against the brain, but we'll see. I don't know. Like, what do you think the odds of that happening are? Like, is it like 3070? I mean, it's, you said at the beginning of this, it's goal tend to. I mean,

that's where we start with. There is, I will never be more than 70% sure on anything involving goaltending. Is Igor Shasurkin going to be good this year? I'm 70% sure that he won't. I might go to 75 for Andre Vasselowski, and that's it because goaltending is weird. And you can absolutely see that. I've said this with Kyle Dubas, not just with Matt Murray, but with how he's bent over backwards for the stars and how he always says he's never breaking up the core and all this. If the Toronto Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup this year, we are all going to be pointing back Kyle Dubas and this offseason, the last few offseason saying this guy had nerves of steel,

this guy did not panic. This is an all-time great job. Or he's going to be unemployed. And I feel like it's one of those two options because this is just such a bet and the reaction to it. And it, it, you hate to say it, but it becomes a little bit self-fulfilling in Toronto. I don't want to overstate the importance of the noise and, you know, the fans in the media and all that. But the fact that everybody right away had such a negative reaction, which it feels to me like it kind of caught the Leafs a bit off guard, how everybody was saying this is, this is a bad move. you know, Matt Murray goes out and has three bad games to start the season.

And Samsonov isn't good for in two games and the Leafs are one and four. And suddenly, it's panic mode. And everybody's looking around because as you know, and people who don't follow the Leafs may not be wondering like who's next in line. Who else is the kid coming up in the minors to save it? There isn't one. There's like Eric Shalgren was okay last year. But there's no third option. it's these two guys or you've got to go out and get somebody

and oh, I can't even imagine what that move would look like because you talk about it GM, you talk about leverage. Kyle Dubas calls you and says, I need a goalie in November. You've got all the leverage in the world. Yeah, fascinating. Listen, we'll leave it there. And it just feels like, look, it's one of those situations with the least. If they get off to that one and four, that poor start that you mentioned, John, yeah, the skies.

Might be one and two. Yeah, but even if they're four and one, five and one, it doesn't matter. It's show me in April, right? Like, there's no, there's no scenario in which anybody feels good about this team until the spring. None. Zip.

You, you, doesn't matter. You can't win. I mean, we, and that's, they brought it on the selves, but there is, they could have 120 points, win the president's trophy. Austin Matthews wins back-to-back hard trophies. Mitch Martin's an all-star for the third. Matt Murray could win the Vezina. It doesn't matter.

One bad shift in game one of the playoffs and, and we're right back to. it. And I mean, it's, I'm sitting here saying it's self-fulfilling. I'm part of the problem. I'm sitting here on a podcast in my piece is, you know, doing the same thing. But it's, it is what it is. This is, there's a lot of ups in a market like Toronto. These are some of the downs. You can make the gamble. You've got to be right. And I think Kyle Dubas just has to be right on this one because I don't think he gets another chance in it. Yeah. Like I said, Jones, we'll leave it there. Always great to out to chat with you. Look forward to your coverage on the Leafs all season long. Thanks for this. And I'm sure, based on the news cycle, I'm sure we'll be hitting you up again real soon on the athletic hockey show.

Sounds good boys. Thank you. Thanks, Jones. All right. Great stuff with Jonas Siegel. Like I said, I'm sure we'll be talking about the Maple Leafs and bringing Jonas back in throughout the course of the season. Some late news last night, Sean. Usually a midnight press releases, you're thinking that's a negative news dump or something like that. Dallas stars just after midnight for those people that missed the news late Wednesday night, announcing a four-year $31 million contract extension for their young star Jason Robertson. He just had, well, he's kind of had two kind of breakout years, we'll say, but last year established himself as a 40-goals score. It was locked into what appeared to be a sticky RFA contract negotiation.

I think you said this last week on the show when we were talking about potential guys, to win the rocket Richard trophy. And I think he said something along lines of, you know, Robertson was either going to sign one of those short-term, prove it to me deals, or he's going to get the long-term deal. Are you surprised that it was something in between, a four-year deal? At $31 million for Jason Robertson, a hair under $8 million on the AAV. Yeah, I'll say this.

I think the Dallas Stars got the ideal term here. I think they probably would have loved to get him at eight years. certainly at that number or something in the ballpark, but obviously that wasn't realistic. And so four years was the sweet spot for Dallas because anything, you know, if it's two years or three years, then you're back in this situation, but doing it when the cap is going up. Remember, we got two more years of mostly flat cap and then we're told to expect it to start going up five plus million dollars a year. And that's the sweet spot where, you know, to my mind, if you're somebody looking to negotiate a con, that's when you want to be hitting the market.

And so they managed to buy at least the first two years of that. But if they had gone to five years, that walks him to unrestrictive free agents. So instead, they've got, they basically have got him for the maximum amount of time that they can still control his rights at the end of it. Now, one year left in a deal, qualifying offer all that, Jason Robinson will have a lot of leverage in that situation. but I really feel like this is a big win on term for Dallas and the cap hit is reasonable. So it's a good deal for Dallas. Obviously, you know, Jason Roberts isn't going to be shopping at the discount store anytime soon. He'll be all right.

And he does, unlike a lot of these guys who we talked about, all of these young stars locking up on eight-year-old. deals during a flat cap. He didn't do that. So, I mean, that's a win in that sense. But I think if you're the Dallas stars, you're very happy about where this wound up. And if you're a Dallas fan, you just want this kid back in the lineup and you got him now. Yeah, because to me, I was thinking we even heard some rhetoric leading into, I think there's Darren Dreger earlier in the day on Wednesday saying, hey, there's going to have to be some significant movement here from one of the parties because this was turning, turning into one of those kind of contractual stalemates. And then all of a sudden you get the four-year deal done.

It was a weird, it was a weird situation, right? Because we had like some insiders reporting in the morning that it's close. And then you had other insiders saying it's not close. And you sort of wonder, is that one side or the other or is that, you know, just managing expectations? I will say this. Can we all give a thank you to the Dallas Stars for getting this done at 1230 and at night? the one time when none of us are doing podcasts.

Thank you. Dallas stars for not dropping this. I'm sure they were sitting there going, when are Mackin-Dun-Mendez doing their show? Can we drop it 10 minutes after they finish that? But nope, they decided to get it out there so that the 400 different hockey podcasts that are all recording today could all chew on this news.

That's very considerate of them. How many times have we, and we've done it. and we'll let the listener in. You know, sometimes just based on scheduling and whatnot, you know, we have to record on a Wednesday night, right? And 100% that would have been the case, right? We record late on Wednesday and we, you know, we open the show with, boy, this Jason Robertson situation sure is sticky.

And then, you know, we're outdated. So that's, you know, that's really tough. Sometimes we have to do it well in advance and then we have to like just record a different take for every possible contract you could sign. I mean, we're just going down. Boy, six years on Robertson. Yeah. Yeah.

Just drop it in. We just dub our voices over and it's pretty rough behind the scenes here. You know, I want to ask you this on the RFA situation, have we ever seen, I don't think we have. Nobody has ever out of their entry level deal, like a star type of player, like Jason Robertson, obviously we've seen, you know, last year Brady Kachuk, like these ones that kind of bleed into training camp. there's never been a one-year deal signed, has there, by anybody, like an RFA, like a star value? I'm not talking about, like, a lot of the kind of bubble players will sign one year, kind of prove it to the deals. We've never seen a one-year deal, have we, for like a star player.

You know what? Just a one-year, seven and a half million dollars. We just need to get this guy in camp and we'll worry about it late. Just get them in there. Yeah. No, we've never seen that, have we? Off the top of my head, I can't think of very many of those. It feels like maybe there have been a few.

have to think about it. But you're right. I'm willing to bet that the teams are probably offering that at times. Like just, you know, just come back for a year and we do it all next year. But, you know, obviously if you get to that point where it's, it has gone that bad and you're into training camp or beyond, it probably, you know, hey, you know, why kick the can down the road? Because we know we're going to wind up right back here. But yeah, I don't, off the top of my head, I can't think of too many that have gone that way. I mean, just for Brad was August this year, right? And that was a one-year deal.

Yeah. I'm kind of looking around and thinking about it and trying to call up a list here to scan down. I don't see much of that. All right. I mentioned last week we were talking about potential goal total with Sean and talking Jason Robertson there. We were doing that with Jesse Granger, who always draw the by on the Thursday episode of the pod for a little segment we like to call Granger Things

brought to you by our friends at BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with us at the Athletic. Jesse is back and once again we're going to be talking some goal totals here with hey listen, we want to remind people too, regular season starts Friday. Like you're going to see San Jose Nashville and you're going to think on the schedule, oh yeah, that's a that's a preseason game. Nope, regular season kicks off. So get your fantasy. hockey lineup set, all that stuff. And it's a perfect time for us to talk about some goal totals for the season ahead. So, Jesse, I think the number one thing you should be doing with your fantasy lineup is making

sure there's no San Jose Sharks on your fantasy team. Yeah. Yeah. Goaltenders for, well, I know, Timom Meyer. And there's a couple of guys you would have, no? Tomash Hurdle's solid. Hurdle, yeah. Solid.

Maybe. Carlson, if you needed the, I could see Carlson having a 45, 50-point season, maybe. Could be. You know? Could be, but, uh, I don't know. Yeah. It got more than one of those guys put it this way. You're in a rebuilding year.

Yeah, that's a good point. All right, but yeah, we're going to talk some goal totals for the season ahead and kind of just toss around some potential players around the league. And, you know, Jesse, you're going to give us some kind of numbers here. And we're going to talk over or under the lines here for some elite players in the league. Sweet, yeah. Starting with the absolutely elite Phil Castle. I could not make a lot. make this list of players without including Phil Kessel.

I think he's fascinating. He's on your team. Yeah. And he's great to talk to in the room, by the way. I'd never met Phil before he became a golden knight, and he's been a lot of fun. But his regular season goal total is 17 and a half goals. And I find it fascinating because he scored eight last year. First of all, you're not going to find another player who scored eight goals,

who they're even putting a goal total prop for. This is, that's what makes Phil Castle, Phil Castle, but he only scored, he shot 4.8% last year, which is an insanely low number. He did score 20 the year before that, shooting 17%, which is an insanely high number. So somewhere between 4.8 and 17% is what you probably expected him to shoot. Do you guys think he can jump from 8 to over 17 and a half goals this year? Okay, critical question, and you would know the answer to this being the Vegas Golden Knights Beat writer. Give us an idea. Like who's he playing with? What's the power play usage looking like? Give us a sense of what what the usage of Kessel might be this year.

Yeah, that's going to be a huge factor. And I think it's going to play towards the over. Right now he's playing the Golden Knights don't really have a top line under Bruce Cassidy. They've got two lines that basically one A and one B. And Kessel is on one of them. He is playing next to Jack Eichael with Riley Smith on his right side or on his left side. Sorry. So that's a very offensive line for the Golden Knights. I don't know how they're going to be played. I don't know if Phil Kessel can handle 20 minutes a night like Jack Eichl is going to be playing. But yeah, he's going to get heavy usage. And then on the power play, he's on the second unit because he and Eichel are kind of their power play quarterback. So Cassidy's given one unit to Eichel and one to Kessel. Second unit, but I do expect him to get quite a bit of power play time. So yeah, he's going to get plenty of opportunities in Vegas.

Yeah, this is, I'm looking at it. And I remember Phil Kessel, even back in the Toronto days, When you think of Phil Kessel, you think of him coming down and snapping off that great quick shot. But he was always more of a setup guy, more of a C. He was a great passer, a really underrated passer. But I was surprised. His last 15 seasons, he's been over that number, 13 out of the 15. But the two that he wasn't are two of the last three years.

Man, this guy scored 20 goals with Arizona, not last season, but the season before. And that team had nothing. I think he's, I'm going to say over. It's all good vibes for. Yeah, and that 20-go-goal season, that was in the 56-game season, was it not two years ago? Yeah, exactly. And if you per-wain that over, yeah. With a lot of these where you're talking about over-unders and all of this, you always have to sit there and go, yeah, but I got to, how do I weigh the risk of injury?

And Phil Kessel could get hurt too, but you're talking the Iron Man here. You're talking the one guy if you had to bet on somebody to play every game. Phil Kessel's the guy to do it. Yeah. No, I'm with you. I like the over on Kessel of 17 and a half. Feels like 20, the way you laid it out there, Jesse,

is a realistic possibility. And the other thing I want to point out, and Sean, we're going to have to dig for the answer on this. If I'm not mistaken, Kessel's next goal will be the 400th of his career. Okay? And then I think he joins a very exclusive club.

I don't know who's on this list, but guys with 400 career goals who have never scored 40 in a season. Oh. Oh, yeah. So anyway, maybe that's something for Jesse when, You're right. He's one goal away. Look it up. And I think he's never scored 40.

And I think it's a pretty rare. I think it's a small list. Anyway, it's a fun little fact that maybe you can you can dig that up there, Jesse, for when he gets his 400th goal to just to put that into perspective. I like it. I like it. Yeah. Let's transition to a guy who has scored 40. Austin Matthews obviously scored 60 goals last year. His total is lower than I expected it to be 55 and a half. The strange thing that I, because I was actually, we were predicting on yesterday's show,

Will he get 60? And I looked up these stats. He actually shot lower than his average in shooting percentage last year, despite scoring 60 goals. And the reason was the year before he had 222 shots on goal. Last year, he had 348. That is a massive jump. So it's clearly the offense is running through him. I think Matthews goes over 55.5. What about you guys? No, I, I'm taking the under there. And it has nothing to do with his ability to shoot the puck. I think he's got one of the greatest releases of all time. It's the injury factor with Austin that I wonder, will he be able to stay healthy enough to get to 60?

And I think that would be my concern on him. And I think he's a world-class player, but I think he's had a couple of injuries over the years. I'll say no. I think he gets to somewhere around 50, 55 and a half seems a little high for me. Yeah, although he did miss 10 games last year and still hit 60. So, I mean, the flip side. He has typically missed games

games. And I mean, last year, he missed some games to suspension as well. So you figure that doesn't happen again. Because that's the flip side, right? I mean, you have to look at it and say if a guy gets hurt. What if he's healthy? What if Austin Matthews plays all 82 games? Because Jesse makes a good point on the shots.

It was half a game or half a shot per game increase. And typically one of the things that we've learned in the analytics area is, there's two levers that can move to make somebody score more goals. They either get more shots or a higher percentage of shots go in. And if it's the percentage, that tends to come back to Earth. That tends to be something that it does not reflect necessarily a long-term change. Whereas if the number of shots goes up, the volume goes up, that does tend to be something that's sustainable. So that would point to Osamaathus, last year being the new normal.

I think I go over on him. Even though I, you know, typically when you're talking about guys who led the league in goals, you want to go under because regression and, you know, they go. But they put that number right at a place where it does tempt me. And I can't help but sit there and go, it is one of these years he's going to play 80 or into the high 70s in games. And if he does that, I mean, this, this guy might blow past that total. For sure, for sure. All right, let's go to Nathan McKinnon. 36 and a half goals for Nathan McKinnon.

He has only scored more than 36 and a half goals twice in his nine-year career. And he hasn't done it in the last three years. The last three years, he scored 32, 20 in the short and season, 56 games, and 35 the year before that. So close. But it's been a while since he scored 37 or more. Do you guys think he does it this year? Man, it's right. They do such a great job of putting it right at the number where you're just,

thinking this could go either way. Like, it's funny because, yeah, when I think of Nate, I think of him as more of like a 60 assist guy, right? In a lot of seasons, he's the guy that kind of gets around that number of assists. And boy, 37 and a half on Nate McKinnon, I'm going to take the under. I'm going to take the under on that. Boy, I'll go over again because this is, again,

this is another guy who has not been healthy for a full season the last three years, but has done it in his career. and the last time he was healthy for a full season, he scored 41 goals. So, you know, I'm going to put him in there. It's tough. You never know how guys are going to react to a contract situation when they signed the big deal. We have seen obviously in hockey and in sports in general, we've seen guys sign big deals and then takes a step back. Nathan McKinnon, from what we learned about him last year, doesn't strike me as that sort of guy because he seems vaguely insane, you know, when it comes to his diet and his workout and all of that.

So I don't see him suddenly. I don't know. Maybe he did. Maybe he had a powdered donut after he signed that contract. And that's going to, you know, that's going to throw him off. But I like that I'm the optimist in this. That's rare. I'm going over again.

You're the optimist, but you just like goals. I mean, every time I come on here, we talk over under. So you just like goals. Sean's going with over on anything. It might be more wishful thinking than anything. Right. Right. All right.

Let's go to someone who scored a ton of goals last year, Kyle Connor. last year he had 47 and he did it shooting 14.8%. This kind of goes to what Sean was talking about earlier. That's a half percent lower than his career average, 15.3%. So he scored 47 while not even shooting his career average and that was because his shots on goal doubled almost. Two years ago, he had 166. Last year, he had 317 shots on goal.

So to score 47, his total this year, 43, And a half. You think you get, you think he can get over that? Ooh. It's funny. On Connor, he's the one guy that I've looked at him

because Josh Norris and Ottawa kind of came out of the gates and everyone said, hey, can he maintain a shooting percentage, you know, around 18, 19%, which I said no.

But Kyle Conner is a great example of exactly what Norris could be, which is a guy that hangs around 15%. And Connor, to me, has been so consistent. Like, look at his shooting percentage. I don't have it in front of me,

but I remember, in doing the piece. It was like consistently between 15 and 16% every year. Like just lock it in. That's Kyle Connor. So I like it. He's been a relatively healthy guy. I feel like there's a changing of the guard in Winnipeg

and they're handing the keys to him and Nick Elers and kind of saying like this is your team now and kind of moving on from the, at least it feels like symbolically from the wheelers and the Shifleys. I like it. I'll let me switch gears. Let me be the guy. it says over on Kyle Conner.

To your point, Ian, here are his shooting percentages for his five full seasons in the NHL. 16.1, 15.0, 15.9, 15.7, 14.8 last year. First one below 15. That's an unreal shot. Exactly. He's just so consistent. And has been a very healthy player, missed three games last year. Those are the first three that he's missed in a few years. All the arrows are pointing the right way, right? I mean, the shooting percentage as high as it is is actually below his career average. We talked about Austin Matthews going up half a shot a game. He went up a full shot of game, Kyle Connor.

That might be a little bit unsustainable. The thing that makes me nervous is if you had to pick a team that has the potential to really implode, it feels like the jets are maybe there just because of some of the stuff going on in the room and the roster and what have you. And take everybody down with it. But again, I'll be the optimist here. I'll go, you guys are talking me into it. I was under on this guy. I was under the last time I was asked, but you've, you've nudged me to the over.

I'll do it. All right. Keeping Sean on the overtrain. I got, I mean, we're bringing goalies on and everything on this show. I got, you got to have somebody who likes the offense a little bit. Yeah, exactly. Speaking of offense, Connor McDavid, 44 and a half goals is the total. His career high was last year, 44.

So the, the, you don't see a total. higher than or right at a career high very often. I think people are expected a big season at him. He did score 33 in the 56 goal season, which is a pace for 48. So he was on pace for more than this, but he has not scored more than the 44 goals. Do you think he can do it this year? Sean, we'll let you go for. I feel like I've jumped on all of these first.

It feels like this is also being influenced by the 10 goals and the 16 playoff games. But I've said this before. I'm going over on everything Conner, David. this year. I think we already saw it in the playoffs last year, but as terrifying as it is, I think this guy's got another gear. And I think he had to spend six months last year listening to us Toronto media types go, well, maybe Austin Matthews is the best player in the world now. And I think he is, I feel like this is one of those years where Connor McDavid is like, all right, you know what? You, Austin Matthews is better than me. Why? Because he scores goals. You want to

see goals? All right, I'll give you some goals this year. And, uh, you know, know, we look back and go, you know, why is that, why was there that one year that Connor McDavid scored 58 goals? And it's like, oh, right, that's the year that he was sick of hearing about Austin Matthews. And so we just decided to score like crazy. I think the sky's the limit on this guy. And I feel like all of these guys are like psychotically super competitive who get to this level. And I just feel like he's, he's sick and tired of hearing people talk about, as if there's an actual debate over who the best player in the world is. Yeah, you know what?

And I hate to be the guy that just agrees with anything you just said because I know that doesn't always make for a great conversation. But it's hard to see a scenario where he doesn't come into the season with a significant chip on his shoulder. Because, yeah, I think last year you saw it in the playoffs. He went next level in the playoffs basically for a two-round stretch there where you thought this guy is is unbelievable. And so if he can take that same motivation, bring it into the regular season, stay healthy,

which he's been able to do the last couple of years, I think 50 goals is within his reach. And you would have to think that that in the back of his mind, at some point he's going to say, look, I've got the 100 points, I've got like 50 goals. I think every great player would love to hit that threshold one time in their career. I'm thinking why not this year for Conno McDavid. Yeah, I agree with both of you guys. I think he goes over. And speaking of hitting the 50 goal mark, we'll wrap it up with the guy who's done it nine times.

Alex Ovechkin, he's topped 50 goals nine times. His total this year is 44.5. He's topped 44 and a half, 12 of his 17 seasons, which is absolutely ridiculous to say. He needs 21 to pass Gordy Howe for second. I think we all agree he's getting there. He's 114 behind Gretzky, so that's not happening this year. He's going to fall somewhere in between those two. Do you guys think he gets to 44 and a half?

Do you ever, has anyone ever made money betting the under on Alexander Rovetchen? Not much. Here's the part that worries me. It's the Nicholas Baxter factor, right? I mean, this is his guy and, you know, they won't have him for a big chunk of the year. I just, guy's a machine, right? I'm a Russian machine. Does not break.

I'm going to keep going the over until. I, until he makes me look bad. Yeah, it's hard. Like, I think the problem, in some ways, you know how you, everyone waits for, well, this is the year, the capitals, the penguins, the Bruins, whatever, like everyone's waiting for that year where they'd fall off a cliff, right? And it's almost like we're doing the same thing on a veggie. Like, well, one of these years, he won't get to that threshold.

But he did it again. He got 50 last year, did he not? Like, right on the button? And I think if you do. asked most people going into the season, they're like, okay, at some point, he's just going to have some, because, I mean, we went through this in the early 2010 kind of era. Remember where he was like, he had a couple of like back-to-back 30 goal seasons and we're like, well, that's it for him. He's, it was a great run. And then he just came back and had whatever, I'm pretty sure I wrote some of

those, some of those pieces. Yeah. We all did. We all thought that in, in, in round 2010, 2011, that he was done. And in my case, I didn't think that it was because he was bad, all of a sudden. it was because the capitals had ruined him. That was Dale Hunter, right? They freaked out after 2010. They overreacted. Now they're trying to make them play defense. And it's, uh, they've ruined Alexander Ovechkin.

Whoops. Yeah. Yeah, no. And I'm with you. 500 career goals later, and maybe, maybe rethinking that one. Right. And you know what? I think we've all learned our lesson.

And sure, somebody out there is going to say, well, he's going to fall off the cliff. I'd have a lot more respect for the person that is able to accurately predict that. That's never said that. that before, right? We've all said it before. And we've all been wrong before. So I'm at the point with him, yeah, 44 and a half feels about right. And then, you know, until he doesn't do it, he's proven that he's a, he's a guy that's going to get to that threshold pretty easily. Yeah, it's like, like Sean said, not very many people have made money betting Alex Ovechkin Anders in the last 20 years. Yeah. No, not at all. Hey, listen, Jesse, this was great. Like I said, a regular season kicks off

Friday, so a lot of these goal totals for, well, like Sean said, maybe you don't want to be, you know, too many of your pool guys are from San Jose. But certainly as we get closer to this week coming up, a lot of people are going to be thinking about this top of mind with pools and whatnot. So listen, appreciate the time. Thanks for this. And we'll hit you up again next Thursday. Sweet. Thanks for having me, guys. Thanks, Jesse.

Great stuff with Jesse Granger there. Wanted to hit on something, Sean, that you put out before every season. And it's a very simple, well, on the surface, it's a very simple preseason prediction poll. You ask fans to, hey, give me five teams that will unequivocally make the playoffs. Give me five teams that will unequivocally miss the playoffs. Tell me which coaches won't be fired. You know, you kind of do these things. And it's a point system.

And to me, I think this is really interesting because every year we're always wrong. Every year we get things that are in. correct, wherever. So as you've, and I'm sure you've started to, you've got like over a thousand entries on this. So it's hard to go through everything and, but I'm sure you've peruse some of the answers that have started to roll in. And I'm wondering if you're seeing any kind of specific trends in the answers on this preseason prediction poll that you put out or a survey that you do every year. I haven't dug into them too much. What we usually do is, we wait until a contest closes, we scrape all the data and then we, uh, we, we, uh, we, we,

put a report together. And by we, I mean some, some smart people who help me out with this. But, you know, certainly. The down goes brown interns. They're not quite, but we're still working on that. But yeah, it is, it's, it's a fun contest. If people don't know, it's exactly as you described. Just give me, you know, give me five playoff teams. Give me five non-playoff teams. Five coaches that aren't going to get fired. Very easy stuff. Anybody can do it. The trick is if you give me five and even one of them is wrong, you get no points. So it's,

better to go one for one than four for five. How confident are you? And, you know, it doesn't take a lot. Like last year, the coaching question was just a graveyard. I'm not sure anybody got points on it because remember last year, sir, with Joel Quenville getting fired after seven games because of the Blackhawk scandal. Nobody saw that coming. And then the very few people that didn't have Joel Quenble on their list had Barry Trots. and he gets fired by the end of the year. Even the GM question, because the question is, you got to tell me a GM that's going to be still on the job. Not fired, still on the job.

Everybody had Joe Sacken on their list. Under what possible circumstances, would Joe Sackick not be the GM of the Colorado Avalanche? Well, he gets promoted upstairs. So it's a lot of fun that way. We had 1,600 entries last year. One person, the winner, got 50% or more of the points available. So everybody else got a failing grade.

It's pretty wild. As far as what people think, it's exactly what you would expect. There's a lot of confidence in teams like Colorado making the playoffs is pretty much a universal pick. Tampa, Carolina, Toronto and Florida are not quite unanimous, but you see them showing up a lot. The teams that don't make the playoffs, I feel like this year should be easier because like, Let's be honest. We got some teams that aren't even trying to make the playoffs this year. Oh, Arizona, Chicago.

Arizona, Chicago, and, you know, there's a lot of people picking Philly as an obvious non-playoff team, which is interesting because they are trying to make the playoffs. They think they're going to make the playoffs. And it's John Tororella. And, you know, he knows how to squeeze as much value as he can out of a team. So maybe a little risky there. But it's, you know, it's still an interesting one. I've also got some questions about the awards. Give me guys who are going to be top 10 in Norris voting.

Top 10 in Calder. Calder has been a really tough one the last couple of years because, you know, Alex Lofrene, two years ago didn't finish in the top 10. Last year, everybody had Cole Caulfield. I mean, we had already inscribed the trophy for him. Oh, my God. And he got off to that terrible start, but did end up finishing top 10. He got back into like, he didn't, he wasn't really in the running for the award, but he did

get in the top 10 of voting. So that was a near miss. And I even have a question on that I always find interesting of give me somebody who's going to switch team. between now and free agency. So that typically would be a trade, although it could be other things. One thing I'm really interested in

is seeing how many people are putting Patrick Kane on there. It's more than I would think. Yeah, I've actually scoured through. And the two names that are coming up the most are Patrick Kane and Jacob Chekron. Yes. Jacob Chikin, I think, you know, is a big one, although we went through this for most of last year, too,

and it never happened. But Chikrin is definitely there. And Patrick Kain, interestingly, somewhat is that Patrick Kane is showing up much more often than Jonathan Taves. Yes, I noticed that too. Which is interesting because Mark Lazarus has reported that maybe Jonathan Taves would be more inclined to waive a no trade. Of course, they both have that than Patrick Kane would be. But I think this is, you know, people are looking at certainly Patrick King has more value right now.

This guy is still playing at MVP level. So I don't know if it's wishful thinking to put the big sexy name on the list or if it's just the thought that there's to be more demand for him. But I was a little bit surprised at that. I thought those two guys might be a package deal, right? Because you figure if Kane goes, is Taves really going to want to stay and vice versa? I didn't see a lot of people doubling up on that. But again, it's early.

You got until Tuesday to fill this out. So if you're listening to this and you're thinking all the sharks and predators have already started, I missed the deadline. I'm not counting those games. We've got till Tuesday night to get you in here. Let's see what you can do. It's a lot of fun every year, basically, because we get to come back at the end of the year. We all laugh at how terribly we all did on these super easy predictions that remind us that the NHL is anything but easy to predict.

Yeah. Hey, listen, we're going to open up the mailbag here. We've got a voicemail. Can I just jump in with one thought? And I just want to pass this along because I think it's important. I know you've weighed in on this. And I was at the Hockey Canada parliamentary hearings this week, Sean. at Parliament Hill here this week.

I just really quickly, I think it's important to touch on this because obviously this become a big story on this side of the border this week as Hockey Canada. We've seen in the last couple of days significant sponsors, Tim Hortons, Tallas,

Scotia Bank, pulling the plug, some great work being done again by Katie Strang and Dan Robson to kind of iron, nail down some of those things. You know, we've seen the hockey Quebec and a part of Hockey Ontario saying, hey, we're done with Hockey Canada.

I got to tell you, I was in that, I was in that room, Sean, on Tuesday at Parliament Hill. And there was a few times, and you know, you're in this committee room. And now, Andrea Skinner, who's with Hockey Canada, she's appearing on Zoom. Okay, so she's not physically in the room with us, but I'm in the room with the MPs and other journalists.

And I got to tell you, there were a couple of answers that she gave that no word of a lot, just to let the listeners in. Like, we're all kind of looking at each other. Like, did I just hear what I thought I heard? Because there was a couple of things that came out of the mouths of the Hockey Canada executives or the board members that you thought, there's no way that that's what they could have meant, is it?

And then you realize as you look around and you trade, you know, kind of glances with your colleagues, like, yep, they heard it too. and, you know, I think what's really disappointing in all of this is I've sat through multiple meetings here and it just feels like it's the same old, same old. Now they're talking about, well, they're going to bring Bob Nicholson up and he's going to testify. Like, what's the point? Like, honestly, what's the point at this stage of the game? I think Canadians have heard enough.

You know what I thought was really the most telling thing, Sean, was I'm in the hallway after the session is done. and I'm trying to, and I don't know these MPs very well. I've covered some meetings. I, you know, trying to figure out who's who. And, you know, I'm grabbing them. I'm doing interviews with them. And at the end of it, I realized I spoke to a member of the conservative party, the liberal party, the NDP, and the Block, Quebec.

And they were all united and singing from the same playbook or songbook. And I thought, like, if you want, if you want the best illustration of what Hockey Canada has done, they managed to unite every political party in this country. Think about that. In a year in which we have seen in the most divisive politics you can imagine, every political party was like, nope, let's round it. Let's rally together and shout these guys down. And I think you watched it from obviously further away than I did,

but I feel like you had the same kind of takeaways that I did, which is I think you're left with, I mean, come on, there's got to be some change here. some point. Yeah, it was a disastrous performance. And, you know, remember, this isn't, you know, the committee doesn't just show up outside your house and ambush you on your way to your car and start throwing questions at you. This is something that Hockey Canada had a chance to prepare for. They knew for the most part what they were going to be asked. They had time to come up with the strategy, come up with the messaging. And this is what they chose. They did the whole, you know,

the media's out to get us. They stopped just short of saying fake news. And you had that. And you had that ridiculous quote about, you know, geez, if we change the leadership, will the lights even stay on in the rings? Which, I mean, what does that even mean? You're honestly, these people whose names we'd never even heard of a few months ago now think they're so important that hockey in this country, in Canada, will cease if they're not in charge. I mean, look, what I came away with, even just right after that hearing is, we can just say it at this point. There is, there is going to be changed at the top. It's inevitable at this point. There is no way that the leadership of hockey Canada stays as is. There have to be massive changes. There will be. It's just a question

when and how stubborn do they want to be and how much damage do they want to do to the sport on their way out. I had somebody in my Twitter replies make, they put it, I thought, pretty well. They said, it's very clear that these people are no longer worried about what's best for the sport or what's best for hockey Canada. It's about what's best for themselves. They're protecting themselves, their own egos, their own, you know, maybe legal liability, who knows. But the change is coming. That part is inevitable. And now, since then, we've seen all these sponsors pulling a big, name sponsors saying, we're not going to have anything to do with the men's side of hockey Canada anymore. You've had provincial bodies speaking up saying they don't want to be involved

anymore. You've got hit at the prime minister of Canada criticizing their performance even if even if you believed coming into this week that the executive was was blameless or that they were doing the best job they could. It was bad circumstances. It was a crisis, a scandal, but but it was not one of their making and their their handling it the best they could. Even if you wanted to have the most charitable possible view of how they've handled it, this week was such a disaster that it alone was a firing offense. That hearing. That alone, because even if you held them blameless up until this point, crisis management is part of leadership, and this was an absolute failure in crisis management and communication and messaging, you need to make changes just based on what we saw

this week, let alone all of the other long list of reasons that it should have happened already. Yeah. And one other note that it kind of didn't sit well with me is when Andrew Skinner said, you know, I hate to see, and I'm paraphrasing, but I'll get the tone right, that hockey's being scapegoated here. And this is a societal problem. And okay, I do agree on the premise that, you know, abuse and sort of that type of behavior happens in different realms. It happens in schools. It happens in churches. It happens in corporate boardrooms. It happens all over the place. But we weren't in that room on Tuesday to discuss abusive situations. and toxic behavior in those entities.

We were there specifically to talk about it in hockey. And that was disappointing because if hockey Canada, you know, it's almost like hockey Canada was sitting back and saying, well, we're waiting for society to fix the problem. Well, that's not the point here. The point is you've got to take care of your own sphere. And hockey Canada, we're not asking hockey Canada to fix society. We're asking hockey Canada to fix hockey. That's it.

You're not society Canada. You're hockey Canada. And nothing changes if we all look at our own sphere of influence and say, well, the problem extends beyond this, so I won't do anything. Nothing changes. It's a cop-out. It's an excuse. And look, I mean, a lot of us are struggling with this because we look around and we're becoming

more and more aware of these issues and, you know, in some cases, in some cases we've seen them forever. And we're going, what can I do? You know what? I'm just one guy. I'm just one person. What can I do? Here you're talking about an organization that actually has the power to enact substantial change. And they don't seem to want to do it. No. So get them out of there. Get some people in who will. Yeah, exactly. Well said. All right. Like I said, let's move on. We got some emails. We have a voicemail as well. You can hit us up on a voicemail at 845-4-45-845-845-49. That's exactly what Greg did via voicemail. This is Greg weighing in on a debate we had last week over the acronym P-I-M.

I have a copy of the very first ever National Hockey League Guide and Record book published for the 1932-33 season. You go to the back and look at the players and it lists their stats. It clearly says penalties in minutes. Just thought it helped clarify. Thanks. Bye now. All right. There you go.

Greg has consulted the OG rule book, Sean, from the 1930s. And I guess we owe you an apology. We're exonerated. The matter settled. It's penalties in minutes. It's not penalty infraction minutes. I had a few people send me this. I'm impressed with how many of our listeners have like 80-year-old copies of rule books and media guides and that sort of thing lying around.

But yes, it is. I now consider the matter settled. I am right and never question me again. All right. We talked about this last week. who were like, why the heck did the Boston Garden host its last game as a preseason contest in the fall of 1995, a game between the Habs and the Bruins, obviously.

Morgan writes in and says, I looked it up to make sure I remember this correctly, but I think the last game at Boston Garden that counted for anything was a playoff game where the devils eliminated the Bruins from the playoffs on route to New Jersey's first down the cup and being a Devils fan. My guess was the Bruins,

didn't want to give the gardens a send-off in a game like that. So that's possible. That's Morgan. Yeah, I mean, I don't remember that exact game, but you're losing to the Devils in the mid-90s. It was probably a terrible game. Yeah, two to one. But the Leaves, the last game in Chicago Stadium was the Leaps winning a playoff game,

won nothing, I believe, to end a series. So, I mean, you talk about an inauspicious ending to a wonderful building. That one would be hard to be hard. beat. Okay, we were talking about Zadano Chara retiring and I said, damn, that's the last guy, that's my age that has retired from the NHL. Courtney writes in and says

I'm a year older than you, Sean. This was my actual child's draft year. I've crumbled to dust watching preseason games with these kids playing. When did we get old? I blame pandemic time. That's from Courtney. I don't like

seeing 2004 birth years rolling around. The one It really threw me that I remember was when just Perry Cockanemi became the first 2000 birth year in pro sports, I think. I think he was the first of the big four. That was the moment where I kind of felt like, man, this this hurts a lot. Because I remember, I remember, you know, you know how they always give whenever somebody gets drafted? They give them the jersey that has the draft year number on it. And I remember thinking when I was younger going, man, it's going to be so weird in 1999 when everyone's old enough.

99 like they're Wayne Gretzky. And then it happened. And I thought, wow, I'm old. And then I realized that people born after that are now in the NHL. It's, it's, it's not okay. Honestly, we need to, we need to close the draft until we figure out what's going on, because this is, these guys, I don't, I don't have kids who are draft eligible yet, but I'm not looking forward to that. And I'm, I'm starting to think I'm not going to make this lead. Like, I'm, I don't think I'm getting picked. Yeah. You've finally come around to that? Not entirely, but I feel like it's getting less likely every year. Yeah. All right. Let's wrap it up with a little this week in hockey history. I just got one for you here. And this week in 1955, 1995, 1955, Glenn Hall,

goaltender for the Detroit Red Wings at the time, begins it probably the great, like, can we agree on this? this is the greatest Ironman streak in sports, 502 straight starts in a row. He ends up getting traded Chicago and ends up playing 502 straight games until he finally has to leave a game in the early 1960s with some back issues. So Glenn Hall plays 5002 straight games

starting this week in 1955. Here's my question, Sean. What's the number for the most number of consecutive starts we would ever see a current goalie get to now. 20, like, even a goalie making 20 starts in a row seems a little bit high. What's the number now? You just don't see it anymore.

I mean, you talk, people talk about Wayne Gretzky records being unbreakable. This one is literally unbreakable because, I mean, these days, goalies don't play back-to-backs. And there's so many back-to-back games, you know, it's, you would need a situation where the backup was injured, the third string was injured, a team was life or death to make the playoffs, and even then, I mean, I guess you see guys still get well into the 60s these days, but I can't imagine it. The last, you know, I remember Grant Fier, the 96 Blues, that crazy team, had Mike Keenan, and he just decided, I'm going old school, I'm starting Grandfier every single game.

And I think Grant Fier made it into the 70s before he got hurt, and they had to go to a backup. up, but he started every game, which was absolutely ridiculous. And he would have needed to do that for seven years to even get into Glen Hall range. It's just absolutely, absolutely insane. You know, so a couple of years ago for Ottawa, Mike Condon, I think he made 28 starts in a row for all. It was the year, it was the year with Craig. How far down the list, if you said to somebody, who was the last guy to make 28 starts How long before you got the Mike Condon?

What has to go wrong? Well, what is the list of things that went wrong that Mike Condon did 28? I think it was 20. Well, I'll double check it. But it was the combination of Andrew Hammond was hurt. And then Craig Anderson, that was the year he was away. His wife Nicole was dealing with issues battling cancer.

So Craig stepped away. Hammond was hurt. And they're like, they had the trade for Mike Condon. And at one, I think he made. 28 starts in a row at one point. So I'm thinking he's the last guy to do that. You know, you know who could break the record is if either of the guys in Chicago or Arizona this year,

if they're playing really badly, you can't you see Chicago like getting to the All-Star break and Peter Verazix got like a 4.5 goals against it. And then they just start him 40 games in a row. And he's like, I'm exhausted, I'm hurt. And they're like, yeah, we know. Yeah, we know. Yeah, we're good.

He's like, I can't even look to my left. I can't. They're like, yeah, we're aware. It's Connor Bidard or nothing. That might be the only way we get there. Or we bring Mike Keenan back, which I would be completely in favor of, by the way. Absolutely.

All right. We'll leave it there. Maybe somebody can let us know if there's been another goalie in recent history. Like, even to get 20 starts in a row. I think that's the number. Like, I wonder if we'll see a goalie make 20 or 25 starts again, you know, down the road. But I'd love to hear from our listeners on that. I want a little promo here.

here. The Friday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show with Haley Salvey and Sean Gentile. It's Carolina Hurricane said coach Rod Brindamore going to drop by for a conversation. So that should be a lot of fun with Haley and Sean. Do you think they ask, like, I'd love to know, what do you think Rod Brindamore's cheat meal is? That's what I would like to know. Yeah. It's cheat meal. Like is it like just unseasoned chicken breast?

Yeah, he has, like he treats himself to like a cracker with salt on it. Yeah, one premium plus. One plain saltine cracker. Yeah. If he's really going to go crazy. Yeah, I'm hoping. I'm banking on the fact that they ask a question like that, but I'm sure it'll be a lot of fun.

We'll leave it there. We want to thank everybody for joining us for this Thursday edition of The Athletic Hockey Show. We'll hit you up again next week. As always, we love to hear from you via email, The Athletic Hockey Show at g-mail.com, or like Greg, you can drop us a voicemail at 845-4-4-5-8-4-84. 59. Not a subscriber with us. You can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show. Get yourself an annual subscription for a dollar a month for the first six months.