The Athletic Hockey Show - Canadiens dominate, but lose in Game 2 vs Lightning, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins signs extension with Oilers, and more

Episode Date: July 1, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Final on Wednesday and Blake Coleman's soul-crushing goal in the last moments of the 2nd period. If the Lightning do go back to back, is it time to consider them a dynasty? Also, Ryan Nugent Hopkins' extension with the Edmonton Oilers, is this contract a sign of things to come for a softer market this summer?Then, Jesse Granger hops on to discuss the evolution of betting lines over the season for the top four NHL Awards categories, the duo hit the mailbag to discuss expanded playoffs and cross-checking, and in "This Week in Hockey History" a look back at fascinating trade drama involving Eric Lindros and more.Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail], or leave a VM at [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back. It's another edition of the Athletic Hockey show. Ian Mendez, Sean McAdee with you on this Canada Day for our listeners north of the border. Head on this show, we'll discuss the Habs playing the near perfect game in Tampa on Wednesday night, but still coming up short thanks in large part to Blake Coleman's back-breaking goal at the end of the second period. And if Tampa wins this series, do we start throwing the dynasty term around with this team? We'll hit on R&H's extension in Edmonton. Jesse Granger pops by for Granger things. We'll open up the mailbag once again this week

and discuss cross-checking and when and where it's allowed on the ice. And this date and hockey history looks back at the time the Quebec Nordiques traded Eric Lindrauss to not one, but two teams. We'll get to all of that coming up in the next hour or so. But Sean, as we kick off this show, does it not kind of feel weird to you? Because July 1st, as I mentioned, it's for those of us north of the border, it's Canada Day. but July 1st has connotations in the hockey world, right?

Like it's the date of free agency, the date of the new season, the new calendar. Does it feel weird to you that we're on July the 1st and we're not talking free agency? We're not talking, you know, that sort of off-ice stuff? Yeah, this is what we're supposed to be doing up here in Canada is you have your Canada Day plans. You're doing something with the kids or maybe you're up at a cottage. You're sitting around a fire having a few pops. and you just wait for your phone to buzz every few minutes to give you some news about somebody going somewhere or, you know, some move. And then you're either excited or you're going, we gave that guy how much?

Oh, no, that's not going to work out very well. And it's a fun day. And then usually at the very end of the day, you get the, you know, Canada Day is over when every Canadian insider signs off for the rest of the summer and say, see you later. And then you don't hear from them for. And then for two months, the hockey world can do anything and nobody will know because we don't. don't have the five most plugged-in guys that are all sitting around, sitting on a dock. And then you see pictures from like Pierre LeBron's cottage. It's like, how come everybody except the two of us is at that cottage?

You know, like, yeah. Yeah, exactly. They're all there. There's even two empty seats, but I must have missed it. Must have gone in my spam folder or something. I don't know. Do you also think like, look, and July the first, like I said, for those, for our American listeners, this is essentially the equivalent of July the 4th, right?

Like this is our day to kind of have a statutory holiday. Do you think that in the future, the NHL should move July 1st out of respect to Canada? Or do you think, Sean, you know what, it's fine. July the 1st, it's a natural date on the calendar. It's quite all right because here's the way I look at it. There's no way that like Major League Baseball would put its trade deadline or something on July the 4th, right? Like, there's no way that would happen. So do you think that the NHL should say, you know what, let's do June 30th, let's do July 2nd, let's do something different.

Let's leave July 1st out of the equation. Yeah, you know what? I could see it, but I got to be honest, I kind of like having it on July 1st. Because what do we always say on trade deadline day, right? Which is always it's the other big transaction day. At some point on trade deadline like day, somebody always goes, man, you know, trade deadline day should be a holiday in Canada. It's good. We should all get the day off work and we should all be able to just do this all day long. Well, that's what the free agency day in a normal year is a holiday up here. and we get to, so I kind of like that.

You know, it's not so much fun if you're out in the middle of nowhere with no connection and you don't know what's going on. But if it's just a regular day off and you're sitting around a cookout or whatever, then to me it's a pretty fun way to spend a holiday. Yeah, I'd love to hear stories too from her listeners of, you know, if you're from Canada and you've had the, you probably have memories of maybe being at a backyard barbecue or something and then, you know, you find out signing, then you get, there's probably some great stories of great arguments and debates

that have happened, right? Because like, yeah, where were you when you found out about the Milan luchichich signing? Jeff Fingers signed for what? Like, yes, yeah, yeah. There have been there been a few of those. Oh, man. So, hey, listen, Wednesday night, the Montreal Canadians in Tampa Bay Lightning play game two. And Sean, I got to tell you, watching that game, when Montreal scored the tie it with the Nick Suzuki goal at one, and then they were just coming in waves and waves.

it like there's no way people thought you would see a stretch of hockey like that in this series from Montreal against Tampa they dummied the lightning for like 12, 13 minutes straight they were coming in waves coming in waves and then Blake Coleman with the capital B backbreaking goal what's our what's our view here because I think you can look at these two ways if you're a Montreal Canadiens fan or a player whatever I think position one is you look at that and say you know what, we got some hope. We're not being run out of the building by the lightning. We can hang with these guys. So guys, if we can replicate what we did in the second period, save for the final five tenths of a second, if we can do that again, we'll be okay. We can win four

out of five. We do that. But then the flip side of that is, Sean, they emptied the tank. They did everything they could have done and they still couldn't beat Tampa. Which one of these things do you think is more accurate? Yeah, I think it's a bit of both. If I got to pick one, I'm going to lean towards option one, but with a twist. Because look, we all know, and certainly the players involved in this series, know how hockey works. Sometimes the best team doesn't win. Best team didn't win last night. Montreal Canadians were the best team on the ice in game two.

And sometimes you do everything right and you just don't get the balance. You don't get that play. The big save here at the other end turns the game. I think if you're Montreal, if you're a fan, certainly if you're a player, you're going, hey, we play like that again,

chances are we win. We play like that in game three. Yeah, give us that game again in game three and we like our odds a lot to win that game. And if we play like that every game, the rest of the series, we're definitely going to win some games against these guys.

Full credit to Tampa, they hung with it. I mean, that second period, it was like watching a boxer up against the ropes, just getting hammered. And you're sitting there going, can he make it to the,

the bell and that is what it felt like watching tampa in that second period could they make it to intermission and then maybe reset maybe john cooper goes and peels the pain off the walls of the big speech or something to wake them back up but you're just sitting there going they're trying to hang in there and then they land the knockout punch at the right at the end out of nowhere uh you know if i'm montreal i'm i'm sitting there saying a lot of people didn't think we could hang with these guys a lot of people didn't think we even belonged we know we belong we know we can hang with these guys and we know we can be the better team than these guys because we just showed it. That's all great. Here's the problem. You've got to win four out of five games now.

I mean, you're down to nothing. It's one thing to say, can we win game three? You got to win four out of five against this team. And you just gave them your very best shot or what we assume is your very best shot. And it still wasn't enough. There's no guarantee. Even if you, even if you could replicate that game five more times, there's no guarantee you're going to get four wins out of it. And that's where the math just starts to really worry you. Now, obviously, you go out, you win game three, suddenly the math looks a lot better. And we see lots of teams come back from 2-1, and then you got some momentum. You win game four, and off we go, I won't do the whole, here's how the series is going to play out, schick again.

But they're absolutely in it. All the old cliches, you're never out of it until you lose at home, all of that sort of thing. But, yeah, there has to be a little bit of doubt in your mind because the piece of it is, look, Montreal played great. And they control how they play. So they can play like that again. Tampa didn't play great. And that's the thing that if on Montreal, I'm sitting there going,

we're maybe not going to get another game like that from Tampa. We can bring our best, but they're going to bring something closer to their best. And it's, you know, I like how Montreal looks in this series. But the math of being down to nothing just really, really doesn't add up well for them.

Yeah. And you know, you mentioned Blake Coleman delivering the knockout punch. And that's exactly what it felt like. It felt like the Habs had them. It was like a, Tampa did a rope atop where they just took a bunch of punches and then all of a sudden unleashed an uppercut to the jaw that knocked the Montreal Canadians out there.

Like, in my mind, I'm looking back, and I even went on hockey reference this morning and tried to look back. Stanley Cup final, like short-handed goals, Stanley Cup final, goals in the last minute of a period. And I'm having a hard time, Sean, finding a bigger kind of backbreaking, or I'll use the term soul crushing goal. Like, so not an overtime goal because obviously that's obviously going to be backbreaking and soul crushing.

But I'm talking about a goal scored in regulation time, like a momentum shift. Like it's for me, I'm having a hard time thinking of a goal. And again, recency bias always plays in into the equation. But boy, oh boy, like, I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-overtime goal that swung momentum something like that in a Stanley Cup final game. Yeah, there's, there's not a ton and certainly not a ton if you're looking for great goals, like goals that make the highlight real like that. I'll give you a few.

I got a few real nice ones. And then if another one that's maybe not the nicest goal, but you want to talk backbreaker, you go back a couple of years, the game seven with the blues and the Bruins, the line change goal at the end of the first period where Brad Marchangelo was off early and suddenly it looks like Boston's got a little something going and then St. Louis goes right back the other way and Alex Peter Angelos scores. And that one had the benefit of also it was a visiting team, right? So it was a silencer in terms of what it did to the crowd. But I'll give you three of what I would argue are three of the greatest goals in Stanley Cup final history.

And they all go back to the 90s. So we are going back away. I'm sure there's probably some better examples in there. But first of all, the one that I would consider probably the greatest goal ever scored in Stanley Cup final history. Mario against Minnesota North Stars. Because I went back and I looked it up because I remember that series was a little weird. There were some blowouts in the series and I thought, was that a blowout? No, it came in game two.

Minnesota, a team that, I mean, geez, you talk about Montreal being an unexpected team in the final. The Minnesota North Stars were a flat out bad team, but they go on a miracle run. They're playing the Penguins. Minnesota wins game one. game two, Pittsburgh jumps out to a two-nothing lead, but then Minnesota gets back in it. It's two to one.

Now you're thinking, geez, if they get the next goal, and that's what Mario scores that absolutely unbelievable goal. And the Penguins go on, win that game and win the series. So that one I would put up there,

maybe not quite as much a backbreaker, because Minnesota still came out of a tide, but that would be up there. The next year, 1992, game one between Chicago and Pittsburgh. Chicago has a couple of three-goal leads, but Pittsburgh claws back. They get within one goal,

and then with five minutes left, Yarmory Yager scores that ridiculous goal we've all seen, where he just dangles the whole team. I mean, I think he individually deeks out every single member of the Blackhawks on one shift. That was really the moment where Yarm Rehager arrived as, this guy is not the sidekick for Merrill Mew. This guy is another Meryl Mew-type talent.

And that ties the game. and then Mario scores at the end of regulation to win it. So again, it tied the game, so maybe not a total backbreaker, but right up there. And then the last one, and this one's a bit of a, a bit of a spoiler for a thing that I'm working on for next week. So try to act surprise. But the 1997 final, Detroit, Philadelphia, Detroit's already up 3-0 in the series. So, I mean, we're already, Philadelphia is already in a bad place. Maybe they're already down and out.

but Detroit's up 1-0. Philadelphia is desperately trying to hold on, trying to claw back, trying to get the goal that can maybe, you know, get them a win and you start a comeback. And then of all people on that stacked Detroit team that had Eisenman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Shanahan, it's Darren McCarty scores one of the most beautiful goals that you will ever see in a Stanley Cup final,

goes end to end, goes around the defenseman, goes around the goaltender. and scores of beauty. And that makes it 2-0. And Philadelphia really doesn't get anything going the rest of the way. And that holds up as the Stanley Cup winning goal. Yeah, that McCarty one, I always say,

I have a hard time figuring out. And McCarty, I think he walked Yannee Neema of the Flyers for that goal. Yeah, I have a hard time. What's the better goal scored by, like, the kind of the grinder, kind of fourth line, tough guy? Brad May with May Day?

Yeah. Darren McCarty. Yeah. They're both unreal. We did that debate. And I mean, I think you've got to go McCarty. And now I know there are people out there who'd say, Darren McCarty wasn't a tough guy.

Darren McCarty was, you know, he had almost 20 goals that year. Claude Lemieux would probably want to differ with you about the, about Derek McCarty's role. But, I mean, it was just such a beauty. And that one, I can only imagine being a player on the bench, obviously you're, you're hype for any goal. But when you see that guy do that. that has to be the moment where you're Detroit,

where you're looking around going, it's over. We got this. And remember, that was a 40 plus year Stanley Cup drought in Detroit at that point. So you're saying the building is going crazy. Yeah. You're looking at each other going,

this is going to happen. If Darren McCarty is deacon outhold teams, this is going to happen. This is our night. And it was. Yeah. So look, Tampa wins that game.

They're up to nothing. And the math will tell you it's statistically pointed or weighed heavily in their favor now. Like it's going to be awfully difficult for the Montreal Canadiens to come back and win for the next five. Stranger Things have happened. But we're now looking squarely at the possibility, Sean, of the Tampa Lightning going back to back, which is super impressive in the cap era. And in fact, even if you go back the last 30 years from the time you talked about Mario's goal against Minnesota, they would be only, if I'm not mistaken, right, the fourth team to go back to back. The penguins went back to back in 91, 92. And Detroit went back to back 9798.

Pittsburgh went back to back 1617, and now you're looking at Tampa. And I think we always, we had this great debate with the Chicago Blackhawks when they won three Stanley Cups in that window from 2010 to 2015. And we're like, are they a dynasty? Are they not a dynasty? What happens here? What's the legacy? What's the feeling? Let's say Tampa, do we start to use the dynasty term with this team shot if they close this out and win this series?

Yeah, I don't know. I've always felt like a dynasty needed three. three championships, not necessarily in a row. I feel like, especially in the cap era, that's just such a big ask. But I've always felt like three was the number. But we have been kind of redefining the term in the cap era. I think there's an understanding. You know, especially, you know, you and I, we both kind of grew up as hockey fans in the era

where the NHL went from Montreal to the islanders to the Oilers. and those were dynasties. And then even the penguins, early 90s, yeah, I guess sometimes you hear them referred to that way, but it feels like they needed the one more. But it's especially in the cap pair. I mean, it's an amazing achievement. Yeah, you talk about the teams that have done it in the last 30 years.

Look at the teams that haven't. Colorado Avalanche never pulled up back to back. New Jersey Devils never pulled up back to back. The Blackhawks never did it. Kings never did it. It's really difficult and, you know, Tampa's still got a way to go. You know, dynasty, I don't know if that's the right word, but they'll certainly be in the conversation for best team of the cap era. Like it feels like we kind of went through that where we, once Pittsburgh got that third title, it was like, all right, Chicago, where Pittsburgh.

Who do we have here? But Tampa's going to be one title short, but, you know, look, they had the trip to the final. They had so many other good years. They're absolutely right in the conversation for the year. the very best team. And if they can get that third championship, who's to say they're not going to? I mean, this team's going to look pretty similar next year

in the year after that and hopefully for a few years. So these guys, this is a real, real good team. And if they can pull this off and go back to back in a league where you're not supposed to be able to do that, it's going to be an enormously impressive achievement, even if old-timers like that. me might hesitate to use the D word for it. Okay, so now you said three Stanley Cups is kind of your baseline for a dynasty.

So let me, let me throw two teams at you. You tell me yes or no, they're a dynasty. New Jersey Devils. They win a Stanley Cup in 95. They win a Stanley Cup in 2000. They win a Stanley Cup in 2003. Yes or no? Yeah, again, I don't think of that as a dynasty because they're just so spread out.

I think of that as arguably the model franchise, also Detroit and Colorado were right there at the same time of that era. I wouldn't say dynasty for that team. Although if they had done it in the cap era, I might have flipped around because if the next team you're going to mention is the penguins of the cap era, I might turn around there and go, yeah, you know, maybe I'll give them the dynasty tag that I wouldn't give to New Jersey. And the reason is just once we got the cap, once we have parity, once we have this situation

where, you know, it feels like everyone's, everyone's pretty much the same. It's the same amount of time. I don't know. I don't know why I feel like I want to give a different answer for those two. I probably shouldn't. But I do feel like the cap forces us to change the definition because, and hopefully, Tampa Bay doesn't go prove me wrong on this. I can't imagine we're ever going to see a New York Islanders type dynasty where a team wins four cups in a row ever again under this current system.

So we kind of have to massage the definition, I would think. but I'm open to people telling me that no, a dynasty is still a dynasty. If we don't have them anymore because of the cap, then that's just the way it goes. Yeah, and I think to the argument in favor of Pittsburgh over New Jersey, not only the cup, but Pittsburgh did go back to back.

You know, they won 16 and 17. And so, and a lot of that core was part of it too, Crosby, LaTang, Malkin. So they had some continuity during those three runs. All right. As I mentioned to kick off this show, Sean. It is July the first in Canada. usually means free agency.

That's been pushed to July 28th, by the way. So for our listeners who aren't sure of what the new calendar looks like, free agency July 28th. But that doesn't mean some UFAs or potential UFAs aren't already off the market. Sean, this week the Edmonton Oilers extended Ryan Nugent Hopkins on what I think can only be described as, I guess a team-friendly deal. Like I think a lot of people look at that and see like, wow, Ryan Nugent Hopkins signed for maybe less than what he would have got on the open

market. And I guess my question to you is, do we look at this as, you know, Ryan Nugent Hopkins signing an eight-year extension at basically five, you know, five, yeah, it's eight years, 41 million, okay? Do we look at that and say like, okay, that's an indication of a flat cap and there's going to be some more team-friendly deals on the horizon? I think it certainly could. I mean, there are, we don't have a lot of experience in a flat cap world. We've got last year, which was a very weird year for multiple reasons. And I think if we can pull any lessons from last year, it's that, look, if you're a superstar, if you're Alex P. Adirangelo, you're going to get paid no matter what the situation is because some team will figure out a way to bring you on.

But anybody else, the market might not be what you think. I mean, look at Taylor Hall last year in that situation where he was probably the number one forward, we thought, going into free agency and the market just didn't materialize for him. A guy like Ryan Nugent Hopkins, I mean, look, part of this is, I think players have to ask themselves, how much do I want to be where I am right now? How much do I like where I am? And if so, can I get a deal that's good enough here before I go to the market? because who knows. Ryan Nugent Hopkins is one of those guys I would consider a real good player, certainly a guy where there would be interest,

but how much interest and how high would teams be willing to go? It's hard to say. And there's some unpredictable elements there. And I could see sitting down with him and find his agent and saying, look, here's what we've got in front of us. Here's what we think maybe where we can get Edmonton to go. Do you want to take what's right in front of you, or do you want to take what's behind the mystery door, which could be great.

Maybe Brian Nugent Hopkins hits Free Agency, and he's the number one name out there, and teams are breaking down the door with big dollars. Or maybe not. Maybe the market goes in a different direction, and he kind of finds himself left behind. I would maybe take issue with you characterizing this as a team-friendly deal. I think this is a team-friendly cap hit. Certainly the 5.1 is a lower number than we would have projected for, for a guy with his resume and his name value and the sort of game he can play.

But he got eight years. And obviously, you know, not just can you not get eight years in free agency, the maximum is seven if you're switching teams. But a lot of teams are going to be hesitant to even go that high. And he got eight years with a full no movement clause the entire time. That's really big. And in fact, you know, Ken Holland even said this. Ken Holland said, look, I wanted to keep the cap hit low.

the player wanted term. So we gave more term than we wanted to get the cap hit and the player took less cap hit than he wanted to get the term. I think that's a good deal for both teams and it could be a model for various situations around the league where there are players that are maybe not similar players in terms of in terms of what they can do, but players in similar situations where it's like, okay, do I want to go to market or do I want to just take what I've got and stay where I am? And it's, look, players are people and they're different.

Some of them say, yeah, I want to go to the market. I want to, this is maybe my one chance. I want to find out what I'm worth. I want to talk to other teams. I want to see what's out there. And there's other players and maybe Newtgen Hopkins is one of them where they say, man, that sounds terrible. I do not want to go through that experience.

Lock me up as long as you can because I do not want to do this again. And there's no right or wrong answer there. It's up to the individual. and this seems like a situation where at least right now, both sides got what they want. And probably for the next couple of years, which is prime Connor McDavid window time for the Oilers, they've got a real good player cheaper than they normally would.

Four or five years from now, there's a good chance that whoever is running the Edmonton Oilers is looking at this deal going, man, I don't like this deal and I can't really get out of it because it's got a no move clause. That's life in the NHL, so you sort of pick and choose. And I feel like this deal worked down.

out fine for both sides. I'm not completely sure. I'd say it's team friendly. And as always, every Thursday episode of the athletic hockey show, time to bring in our pal Jesse Granger for a segment we call Granger Things, brought to you by our friends at BetMGM, the Exclusive, betting partner with us here at the athletic. Jesse Granger joins us last week at this time. I think we were kind of just setting up the end of the Montreal Vegas series. The Vegas Golden Knights get bounced by Montreal.

all. And you're right into offseason mode with the Golden Knights looking at, hey, what's this Rosser going to look like? Who might be exposed to the expansion draft? Oh, no, actually, sorry, what am I talking about? I forgot. You're the team that the rules don't apply to Vegas. So you're not like the rest of us. Garrett, I've been rigged it for you guys. I don't know if you heard that. Yeah. What a joke. Anyway, no, you're not doing your mock expansion draft. You're looking at how do the Vegas Golden Knights get Jack Eichel? But maybe you could just tell our listeners from your market's perspective, like how much chatter is there around Jack Eichael? And are our fans kind of saying, hey, we need something here. We need Jack Eichael.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know if the fans are saying we need Jack Eichael, but there's definitely talk. And that's kind of the first thing the fans go to. And I don't really blame them. They've sort of been trained to think that way by this front office. They barely lost out on winning the cup in year one. They immediately signed Paul Stasney, who was the top center free agent that year. They trade for Max Patcheretti in a huge trade. The next season they don't win it. They trade for Mark Stone. The next season they don't win it, they sign Alex Petrangelo. So I think the next logical step for the Golden Knights is trading for Jack Eichael. However, I don't know how realistic that is. I kind of have dug into it in the last

few days. And obviously, the Golden Knights need a number one center. If you were to look at this roster and say, what is the number one missing piece? Why can't this team win a Stanley Cup? I think elite number one center is usually that, I mean, most teams that win have one. And they don't. They have a lot of great players at other positions, and their centers were actually pretty good this year with Chandler Stevenson and William Carlson, but I think that is the biggest missing piece to this team. So obviously Ikel fits there, but his $10 million salary just does not fit on this team. Not only would they have to give up a haul to get him, which anyone would. Obviously, he's one of the best players in the league, but I think they would just have to do so much work around the roster to make that

$10 million fit that you see a team that was already hurt in depth this year. They had to play several games without a full roster because their salary cap was so messed up. I don't expect, I think it would be even worse if you were to add Jack Eichol. And I just don't see a way that this one's going to happen. But as I said, with this front office, never count them out of a big fish in free agency or the trade market. Well, I'll tell you what, one of the things Sean and I wanted to talk to you about this week, and maybe I'll let Sean even kick it off because maybe you could pick one of the

trophies that you're most interested in. But we saw the NHL awards were handed out this week. and obviously you've got some, you know, there's contentious debates that always float around with the awards. But I think we're kind of interested in, man, if you had a time machine, you could go back in time and lay some money down on, you know, whether it's the Calder, the Vezna, Norris, Hart, whatever. Like, you know, what would have been a good play?

And I don't know, Sean, if you have one of those major trophies that you're more interested in. You know what? I've got one that I'm most interested in, but let's start with the heart. it's, I think, the most straightforward one. And the heart trophy gets won by Connor McDavid, the best player in the league. And everybody's consensus pick for best player in the league. But if going back to the start of the season, Connor McDavid didn't win the heart last year, coming into this year, what kind of odds would I've got if I had walked into a book in Vegas

and said, I think Connor McDavid is going to win the heart trophy? Yeah, I think this is a good one to start with just because it kind of, lays the baseline for what to kind of set up how crazy some of these other ones are. McDavid was plus 700 to win the heart at the beginning of the season. So you're winning seven to one, basically. You're winning seven times what you would have put up on McDavid to win the heart. At the mid-season point, it was already so obvious because he was doing what he was doing, that miraculous year that he was already minus money to win the heart.

Just halfway through the season, he was minus 150. So basically, once you got to the midway point, It was hard to bet Connor McDavid with any value. However, it did get worse because by the time the trophy was actually handed out the day before the awards, Connor McDavid was minus 1,100 to win the heart, meaning you would have to bet $1,100 to win $100 on Connor McDavid to win the heart. So it was pretty obvious from everyone watching. He obviously won unanimously. He got every single first place vote for that, which doesn't happen often.

So it was pretty obvious. But if you could have bet him at the beginning of the season, I mean, you don't think 7 to 1 is great odds for a future trophy. But after how obvious it was by the end of the year, you look back and it's like, wow, 7 to 1 would have been great odds for McDavid. That feels amazing to look back and go to 7 to 1, which is just a testament to Connor McDavid. Because it's Connor McDavid against 700 other players. And yeah, even 7 to 1 feels like great numbers. Right. So I want to know about Mark Andre Fleury and the Vesna Trophy because here's a guy last year at this time was available.

You thought he was kind of just this forgotten entity. And he comes back one of the great human interest stories of the past season. And he wins the Vesna Trophy. So if I had some money back in December or maybe even midway point in the season, what were we looking at with Mark Andre Fleur? Yeah, you would have had to been brave. Mark Andre Fleury was coming off a postseason where he barely played. Robin Leonard was obviously the starter. And then Flurry was the backup throughout training camp.

He was, Robin Lennar started opening day in Vegas. So if you were betting on a backup goalie to win Vesina, it would have been 1,000 to 1. I mean, sorry, sorry, plus 1, so it would have been only 15 to 1, which seems very low for Flurry. But I think you have the Hall of Fame resume that he has. And again, every, I've said it a lot of times on here. You never get good odds betting on Vegas and betting on Vegas's favorite player. That is absolutely the fan favorite here. By far, he's 99% of the fan base's favorite player.

I think that you're definitely not getting great odds betting 15 to 1 on a backup goalie to win Vesina. But that's kind of what you get with Flurry. And then Robin Leonard obviously was missing for a month here in Vegas. And Flurry had to play all those games. And at that point, Flurdy was leading the league in just about every stat, goals saved above average, save percentage, goals against. average. And midway point, he was plus 350. So basically three to one, not great odds. And then by the time he won, it didn't change a whole lot. He was still plus 263. So that kind of shows how good of a season

Andre Vasselowski had. Flurry was right there with Vasselowski in terms of odds. And again, I think that shades towards, they don't, the odds makers are protecting themselves against the fans who are more likely to bet Flurry. But it was a really close race between he and Vasselowski. And then the votes ended up being really close. I think Flurry won 108 to 99 in terms of just the way that they add those votes up. It was a really close race. So if you had Flurry back when he was behind Robin Lennar, you would have gotten him at 15 to 1 odds. I bet. I'll tell you right now, if it had been at the beginning of the season and you said, you know what, I think I'm going to drop some money on Mark Andre Fleur at 15 to 1. I would have talked you out of that so quickly. I would have said,

no, you know, it's Vegas. The odds are all wrong. He's a backup. You're crazy, you're throwing your money away. So this is why you don't listen to me when it comes to this stuff, because I would have talked you out of that. I got to ask you about the one that I want to know about, which is the Norris Trophy. Adam Fox, was he even on the board? Could I have bet on Adam Fox to win the Norris trophy at the start of the season? You could have. It would have been 31 and a half to one odds early in the season, which is by far the highest of any of these guys. And that's kind of as we expected. Adam Fox sort of came out of nowhere to win this Ward. Not that he wasn't a good player, but he definitely wasn't in the Norris

considered like conversation early in the year. He was plus 3,150. And obviously he played really well. But even midway through the season, he wasn't, he still wasn't one of those guys. Like, it was still Victor Headman, Kail McCar obviously got a lot of talk this season. But even halfway through the season, Fox was still plus 1800 to win the Norris. So you could have gotten 18 to one odds betting him at the halfway point. And then even leading up to, like I, so I had Fox on my ballot and I kind of thought he was going to win, but I wasn't super confident, but you could have still got plus 570 leading right up to the award announcement.

You could have won five to one basically betting on Fox to win. And I think that just goes to show you when a guy, no matter how good his season is, when a guy who kind of comes out of nowhere and isn't a household name like Victor Headman and Kel McCar. You can get good odds on him. And obviously he is very deserving of the Norris Trophy, got the votes. But he's a guy who you could have made some money on all the way through the season just because of that lack of name recognition over the last few years, I think.

All right. And last one for you real quick. I think a lot of people would have probably maybe put some money on Alexis Lafranier to win the Calder Trophy. Number one overall pick for the Rangers. He ended up going to Carilla Caprizo off of the Minnesota Wild. So walk us through the Calder Trophy and how that sort of played out throughout the course of the season. Yeah, so Caprisov, and this is such a weird, like, trophy because you've got 24-year-olds and 19-year-olds. And, like, it's just so different, the types of rookies you can have in hockey.

And early on in the year, Caprisov wasn't super, like, he wasn't huge odds. He was plus 400. He was the third highest odds when the season opened behind Igor Shisterkin and Alexei Lafinear. So he was kind of up there considered a contender, but not the favorite until March. In March, he finally passed Chesterkin and Lafranier in those odds. About halfway through the season, he became a pretty overwhelming favorite. He was minus 160, so you're already betting minus money to win a futures odd. That's how good he was.

And then it would have been, like, it would have been Connor McDavid level odds for him. The only thing that kept him from really, really running away from it was Robertson in Dallas. He kind of at least gave some people another person that could possibly win it. And so Caprisov ended up being minus 900 prior to the announcement. So you would have had to bet $900 just to win $100. Not quite Connor McDavid level running away with it, but still a pretty comfortable win for Caprisov. Well, excellent stuff. Jesse, as always, we appreciate the time. Thanks for doing this.

Happy early July 4th to you coming up this weekend and all of our listeners down in the United States. Thanks for doing this. We'll get you again next week. Awesome. Thanks for having me, guys. Thanks, Jesse. All right, Sean, as always, wrapping up the podcast here by opening up our mailbag and then we'll do some this date in hockey history. We've got a couple of emails coming in. The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com, the athletic hockey show at gmail.com is the way for you to drop us. An email. You can also hit us up with a voicemail. Yes, we love to hear your voice. 59. I like this question that's in the inbox, Sean, from Sean. Actually, Sean has written into the show and says,

here's a question I've been thinking about. With revenue down and the regular season, sometimes just taken forever to finish, especially for non-contenders, do you guys ever think the NHL would reduce the number of regular season games, but expand the playoffs? Meaning, you get more high-profile, high-revenue games. Maybe all 32 teams are involved at that point. Maybe your regular season is in the neighborhood of 60 games, and then you play a playoff with all 32 teams. So the one thing I'll say, Sean, is I think I like the fact that the 56 game regular season was here this year, right? Like it felt like the games mattered.

It didn't drag on. I doubt that we'll see a truncated regular season. Again, the owners know how to line their pockets. But I got to tell you, I like the idea. And I know our colleague Pierre LeBron talked about it last week about expanding the playoffs with kind of a play-in system. I'm all for that. I just don't know that we'll ever get down

to like a 68-game regular season. Yeah, I have a hard time envisioning that. And I'm on board with our listeners who set this in. The 82 game season does start to feel like a slog sometimes. There really isn't a lot to play for other than the 16 playoff spots. And that's obviously important.

But really, by the time you get two-thirds of the way into the season. We know most of the teams are going to make the playoffs. We know most of the teams that won't. There's a handful of teams on the bubble, we hope, on a good year, fighting for that eighth spot. And that's really all we end up paying attention to. Nobody seems to care about the president's trophy.

Seeding and whole mice don't matter as much as they used to. There's so many upsets. There's so much parity that as much as that might be a plus for a lot of people. it hurts the regular season because who cares if you finish first in your division or in your conference. There's no easy matchups. And, you know, frankly, if you look at what the Montreal Canadians have done it, geez, if they go on and win the Stanley Cup, there's going to be a lot of people saying, what are we playing an 82 game season for? If the 18th best team, according to the regular season, can win the Stanley Cup, and let's just get to the playoffs.

Let's get to the good stuff. Now, we're never going to see a 32 team playoff. like what's being suggested there. You do that, and now the regular season is completely meaningless, because you're not even getting that one thing we get from the season as fans, which is narrowing down the playoff field. I can't imagine anyone going for that. But the listener is right when he says, hey, if we're ever going to shorten the season,

there's got to be some sort of expanded playoffs to go with that, because otherwise this is just the owners giving money away. And we know that this is a gate-driven league. How many butts can you put in season? how many sodas and hot dogs can you sell? That still drives the NHL's bottom line far more than any other sports, so they're going to want those 80-plus games every single year.

And even if you went to a slightly expanded playoff, like Pierre's idea of having the play-in, which I like. I support that idea. That's only influencing a couple of teams. And meanwhile, you'd be having 30 teams in the league, losing however many games of regular season. The math just doesn't add up.

And unfortunately, the NHL, it's all about the math and how that looks on the bottom line. I love the idea, though, of the expanded playoff, honestly. Like, just like you said, with LeBron's piece, I liked it when they did it going into the bubble, to be honest with you. Like, it was a 24-team playoff field that got down to 16. And I like it. I think it's great.

If you had to ask me, what's the sweet spot for regular season? If you could do 62 games or 64 games, that'd be great. And then get right in the class, but I'm with you. There's no way. The thing I don't like as a traditionalist, I love the 50 goal plateau, the 100 point plateau, all that. You lose all that or you almost entirely lose it. But we've almost lost that anyways with the dead puck arrow.

We let that go long ago. So I wouldn't mind it being shortened down. And I do. I like Pierre's idea. And if people haven't seen it, it's basically each conference would have six traditional playoff spots. And then if you finish between seventh and tenth, you'd play a little mini-series, probably two or three games, to determine which teams would get those seventh and eighth spots.

And I know the objection to this is people say what I just said, which is the regular season already feels like it doesn't mean very much. Why would we add even more playoff spots? Are you going to make the regular season feel even more meaningless? And I argue that the play-in system that Pierce suggesting and that others have suggested makes the regular season feel like it means more. Exactly. Because now suddenly there's all these different pressure points. Right now, you're either eighth or your ninth, and that's the only race that matters.

The rest of it doesn't matter. Seating and the rest of it doesn't matter. But if you go to something like this, now suddenly, obviously the difference between 10th and 11th is huge. That gets you into the postseason. But the difference between finishing 7th and finishing 6th is enormous, because you get a lot. get to skip that playing round. Maybe he's going to want to play in that playing round. And now also, by the way, those four teams, they're going to be playing this little mini

round while everyone else is sitting and resting. So if you finish in the top two, you're getting one of those teams. You're rested. They're not. They're tired coming off of a series. So now finishing first and second in a conference actually matters again. I think it just adds all these different races for us to watch instead of right now where we're just hoping that we get one race for that last playoff spot.

each conference and some of the times we don't even get that. One other mailback question will get to, and I feel the need to admit to you, Sean, I took your officiating quiz last week on the athletic. How did you do? I will be honest because I feel like, A, I could lie to you, but then I also feel like it was done on Google forms. I feel like you could go back and find my submission potentially. So I don't want to, listen, we've known each other a long time.

I don't think I want to lie to you. I went eight for 16. You're above average. So I, you're above average. The average score was six. Yeah. And I, top that, you're on the good side. I've covered this game for 20 years and I went eight for 16 on an officiating quiz.

But before we get to this next question, which is kind of related to officiating, what was the one question in your officiating quiz that I guess, pun intended, tripped up people the most? Yeah, it was pun intended exactly. It was the tripping question. question, which is, you know, a lot of people would assume that tripping is a pretty simple rulebook. Don't trip guys. That's it. But the NHL rulebook, for reasons I'm not completely clear on, goes into a little bit more detail than you might expect about how you can trip somebody. And what it does is it basically lists a series of body parts that you are not allowed to use to trip someone. So it's not just your stick or your foot.

It goes down this list. You can't use your hand. You can't use your arm. You can't use your elbow. And so I put that on there. I said which of the following body parts is not included on the list. And it tripped people up because only 5% got it right. Because the one that's not in there, which you would think would be in there, is your shin.

I mean, imagine somebody coming across. You stick your leg out. They hit your shin and they go down. Technically, by the very strict letter of the. NHL rulebook, that's not tripping. And by the same token, if you were to just slide along the ice at somebody and with your torso take their skates out from under them,

technically not tripping because the NHL rulebook has listed all of these things. If you use your elbow, that's a trip. But as soon as you start listing things and anything that's not on the list, I guess doesn't fall under the rule. And that one did, that had a 95% misrate, which is probably appropriate because that seems to about what we're getting from the NHL officials in this close season.

Okay, so this is, like I said, this other question in the mailbox in the inbox is kind of related to officiating. This one comes in from Scott who wants to know. Can you guys explain why at any other time, at any other place in the ring? Cross-checking is not allowed. But if you do it in front of the net, it seems like a standard play and it's accepted. So what Scott is saying is, how come, Sean, if you're a forward in front of the other team's net.

Okay, so let's use the two teams here in the Stanley Cup final as an example. Let's say Brendan Gallagher of the Montreal Canadiens is parked in front of the net in Tampa. What Scott is saying is why does it Tampa defensemen? We'll just use headman here. Ryan McDonough. Okay, Ryan McDonough. Why does Ryan McDonough get to cross-check Gallagher a bunch of times and it's passed off as battling for position.

But if this happened in the neutral zone, let's say for some reason Gallagher's in the neutral zone and he gets cross-checked in the same manner by Madonna, it's a penalty there. Do you have any feelings on this? Is there, is there some truth to this that you're allowed to cross-check guys in front of the net? Well, I'll tell you what the rulebook says.

And the rulebook doesn't say very much. Cross-checking is one of the shortest and simplest rules in the entire book. We just talked about tripping how it goes into a weirdly specific amount of detail. Cross-checking isn't that. The cross-checking rule in the NHL says you can't have both hands on your stick and check somebody with the stick that's held in between those two hands. And that's it.

That's all it says. It then goes on to explain that there can be minors and majors, but that's left completely to the official's discretion. There's no mention of where in the rink it happens. There's no mention of where the contact is on the other player or what the other player is doing or what's happening in the game. There's no context. You just cannot hold your stick and hit somebody with that stick held between two hands.

And that's all the rulebook says. So in terms of the letter of the law, no, there is no explanation that I can give Scott here because there isn't one in the rulebook. Now, this is one of the many, many cases where what the rulebook says and how it's called have evolved differently over time. And certainly in the NHL, they do let stuff go in front of the net. And they will also let stuff go in board battles. Justin Bourne over at SportsNet had a really good piece a couple of weeks ago

where he sort of explained the difference between cross-checking and pushing with your stick, which to my eyes looks exactly the same. But he is a former pro player, sees a difference there and understands that you may be pushing against somebody on the boards for position without cross-checking them. And that, we've seen that. And certainly, I mean, you look at the cross-check on Nikita Kutra of last week. That happened in that area, but it seemed like a clear penalty. It wasn't called.

But where it really becomes obvious is in front of the net. And look, the league right or wrong seems to buy into this idea that if you're going to go in front of the net, there is going to be a price to be paid. That is going to be a battle zone. It's a very dangerous place for a member of the attacking team to be in terms of their potential to score a goal. And so the defensive team is not going to want you there. And they're going to fight hard to push you out of there. And you're going to have to fight hard to stay there. And I think the league kind of likes this concept of the net front battle.

And, you know, I don't mind it as sort of an old school fan, you know, I don't mind it. I've had lots of players that I really liked in my time who would go and set up camp in front of the net. And I've had a lot of defensemen I liked in my time who were really good at clearing the net. And you just see the defensemen in the forward both try to establish position. And they're pushing and shoving and trying to get that leverage on each other.

But it feels to me like it's maybe a relatively recent thing that that evolved to the point where you just get a free shot right into the ribs of a guy who's standing. there. I mean, we're not talking here about trying to establish position, use your weight, use your strength to get a guy out of the way. This is just, oh, you're standing in front of the crease. Well, I'm going to just wind up and two-hand you right in the ribs or right in the small of the back. And they will call it occasionally, usually only if the guy goes down. But, I mean, how many times have we seen it where star players, too, in a lot of cases,

are just getting hammered there. And there is nothing in the rulebook that says that's okay. and it really is something where, again, I feel like I grew up watching the Norris Division. I watched all sort of dirty, nasty hockey. And it didn't seem to be that you used to be able to just wind up and crack the guy like you can today. That's an area they've got to look at. And, you know, we've seen this couple of years. You don't have to rewrite the rulebook. We saw it a couple years ago with slashing, right, where guys were getting slashed on the hands.

Yep. And the league just said, look, just call it. Call what the rulebook says. He's slashing on the gloves. It's not allowed. and we saw that. We saw a bunch of penalties for a couple months, and the players adjusted.

And this would adjust too. I don't mind if a defenseman wants to go over there and clear a guy out. I don't want to turn this into basketball where if he got both feet planted, no one's allowed to touch you, and that's your spot. Yeah, let him battle. Let him push and shove and all of that stuff.

But being able to just wind up and cross-check a guy as hard as you can, because he happened to be standing in a place that he's allowed to stand, that it's gone too far in that direction and I'm with Scott absolutely that they need to do something about it. All right, as we wrap up with this week in hockey history,

let's talk about a guy that was almost impossible to move from the blue paint. That was the biggie, Eric Lindross. This week in hockey history, Sean, this is a fascinating story. And I think it's a cool one for the younger listeners too that might not know what happened. So in the early 1990s,

Eric Lindrosse was taken first overall by the Quebec Nordiques, Lindrosse says, I am not going to play in Quebec. It gets drafted in 1991. A full year goes by. He still hasn't been traded or reported to Quebec. Finally, the Nordiques realized, hey, we got to make a deal for this guy. But here's the catch.

The Nordiques trade Lindrosse to two teams. In fact, there's two teams that believe that they've made a deal with the Quebec Nordiques. What is the Philadelphia Flyers? The other is the New York Rangers. And Sean, this week in hockey history, June 30th, 1992, an independent arbitrator looks at all the facts, collects the information, and deems that the Philadelphia Flyers, in fact,

have the legal and binding trade with Quebec. They get Eric Lindross sending Peter Forsberg and company to Quebec. I mean, has this ever happened in any other sport? Has it ever happened in hockey where a guy gets traded and two teams think they've got them? There have been cases where there'd been disputes over trades. There was a famous case where I think it involved Chris Grattan, and there was an offer sheet, and Phil Esposito claimed that a fax had been smudged

and all of that stuff. That was in the late 90s. But there's never been anything like this. I mean, if you weren't a fan back then, it's hard to overstate how big a prospect Eric Lindross was. I mean, this guy was like Connor McDavid level, sure thing. coming into the league. So imagine if Connor McDavid had said, no, I'm not going to Edmonton, I'll sit out a year, and then the Oilers have to trade him at the draft. I mean, nobody would even be paying attention to the picks. It would be the biggest story of the year,

and as this was. And what turned out to have happened is that the Nord-Eaks had a few different teams in on it. New York and Philadelphia primarily, Chicago was apparently in on it too. And apparently Chicago even kind of thought going into the draft that they were going to get them, but in the end the price gets too high and Quebec goes to both New York and Philadelphia and says this is what we want they've got offers on the table

they kind of like New York's offer a little bit better Philadelphia calls them up and says you know what we'll do the deal on the table they say okay they make essentially a handshake deal they do not file any paperwork and as they are waiting for Philadelphia to pick up the phone and contact Eric Lindrosse and talk to his representatives,

New York calls up and says, we'll do the deal on the table. Quebec likes that deal better. So Quebec goes, well, you know what? We haven't signed anything with the flyers. So tough luck for them. We'll take the Rangers deal. And they go and file that paperwork at the league.

In Philadelphia, he says, wait a second. We were told we had a deal. There was a handshake. There wasn't a signature. And it turns into this big mess. And they end up going to the independent arbitrator. And you tell me if your memory matches mine, Because I feel like going into this, the expectation was that the Rangers were going to win the case.

And that the right, because they had it, they had it signed. And the flyers had a handshake, but, you know, what's, what's a handshake necessarily worth in a legal dispute when the other side's got a signature? And the arbitrator didn't agree. The arbitrator that he essentially ruled that a handshake deal was still a deal. and also a key detail of it had been that the Nordiques had told teams, we will not let you contact Eric Lindrosse and his representatives until we have a deal. And so the fact that they gave those phone numbers to the flyers told the arbitrator that they felt that they had made an official deal and that it was done.

And so it was a big mess. It blew up. They obviously had an enormous impact on three teams because the Nordiques get Peter Forsberg package and they eventually become champions in Colorado. Philadelphia goes on. They get Eric Lindross. Don't end up winning a Stanley Cup, but he's great for as long as he's healthy. And you look at the New York Rangers.

This is 1992. They're two years away from winning a Stanley Cup. Do they win that Stanley Cup if they've traded away all of these guys that were alleged to have been in the deal? I think Adam Graves was in it. Mike Richter was one of the names. Probably not. So just a monster

A monster trade A completely bizarre situation And if you've ever wondered Why the NHL has this formal trade call process You may have seen videos of it Where they have to call in And the guy sits there with the little checklist And this is why

Because now the NHL has the rule Say until the trade call You always hear it at the deadline Right? Until the trade call's done It's not done But back then they didn't have that rule Back then that it was well When it's done it's done

and it turns out that two teams or three teams in this case could have a different view of what it means for a deal to be done. Yeah. And I think if I'm not mistaken, I think the arbitrator in that case was Larry Bertuzi. And the only reason why I know is because Bertuzi, the last name became prominent later with Todd Bertuzi. I believe was the uncle or the great uncle of Todd. Yeah, there was a relation there. Do you think at any point in Larry Bertuzzi's final ruling is like, okay, listen, I got to be at some point, I promise you, Eric Lindross will end up with the Rangers.

We cool? Everyone's cool with that? Yeah. Yeah. I think maybe that's how it went and maybe it's one of those things. I don't know. I know a lot of Flyers fans would say it's a careful what you wish for because they might feel like the Lindross era didn't work out.

Obviously, there were times where Bobby Clark felt that way, but Eric Lindross was just a monster of a player. It's really too bad. He didn't stay healthy because he was absolutely amazing. And we, I don't think we will ever. see a deal again like this for a guy who has never played in the NHL, has not played one game, has not scored one goal in the NHL. And you had multiple teams willing to just blow their roster sky high to get this guy to

build around. It was a really amazing few weeks. All right. One other, speaking of an amazing period of time, how about the 23 minutes span June 29, 2016? So just five years ago, Sean, in a 23 minute span, some call it the, craziest 20 some odd minutes in hockey history. Montreal and Nashville engineer,

a significant trade. Shea Weber for P.K. Suban. Taylor Hall, it was one for one. Taylor Hall goes to New Jersey for Adam Larson. Stephen Stampcoe's resigns with the Tampa Bay Lightning. This all happened in a tight window. I remember I was doing, I was hosting radio back then.

I remember I had a full outline for my show and I'll never forget taking it and dropping it in the recycling bin. I'm like, all right, we got to fly by this. seat of our pants. It's the only time I ever felt, Sean, that the NHL kind of mirrored the NBA. I'm like, this is what it must be like to be an NBA fan. Like, crazy stuff goes down and there's drama and stuff. Things are happening all at once. I was like, man, for 20 minutes, I felt like an NBA fan. It was honestly the most entertaining, certainly the most entertaining

hour of an off season that I've ever seen in the NHL. And I put it right up there against a lot of stuff that happened on the ice. It was just, I mean, the most amazing part is when we all woke up the morning of June 29th, 2016, the absolute biggest story in hockey was Stephen Stamco's. He was three days away from free agency. He had reached the window where I think he was talking to other teams. There was a lot of days. Is he going to go to Toronto? Is he going to come home? Is he going to go to one of these other teams? Can Tampa still keep? By the end of this hour, the Stephen Stamcoe story was over and it was a footnote. Yeah. It was like, I mean, you were talking to your friends. Did you hear? Did you hear? And then you might like, oh, by the way, also Stamco's

going back to Tampa. And nobody even blinked at that point. Yeah. Because those two trades, I mean, you know me. I'm a trade guy. I love trades. I love one for one trades. And you you could argue two of the biggest in the history of the NHL happens within minutes of each other and with very little warning too. I mean, we had, there had been speculation about Taylor Hall potentially being, being traded in Edmonton. P.K. Subban in Montreal, there had been rumors, but then, like, Mark Bergervan, I believe, had come out and said, no, we are not trading him. And that was like a day or two ago. And then, and certainly the, you know, a name like Che Weber, you weren't thinking that at all.

You're thinking, my goodness, they trade him. It's going to be the usual pick, a prospect, a draft pick, maybe a guy off the roster to trade. Shea Weber for P.K. Suben was just a jaw dropper. And I'm trying to, I think the order of operations was Taylor Hall trade first. Yeah, that's what I think. And then, so, I mean, Taylor Hall trade happens. And you're going, this is unbelievable.

It's the Bob McKenzie's famous. The trade is one for one. Everybody thinks the Oilers have been ripped off. You can't believe that all they got was Adam Larson. And you're sitting there going, man, we're going to be talking about this for days, maybe for weeks. And then the Subant Weber trade drops, and that felt like an even bigger deal at the time. And just it was a fascinating time to be on Twitter. I'm sure it was a fascinating time to be hosting a radio show and reacting to it all in real time.

And, man, we complain a lot that the NHL offseason maybe doesn't pack as much punch as it could. This was the one time. We got a whole offseason worth of fun crammed into about 20-something minutes, and it was unbelievable. Yeah, no, it was truly, truly remarkable in that little window. All right. We'll have to leave it there. Listen, enjoy.

As the series now shifts to Montreal for Game 3, enjoy that. Happy Canada Day to you, Sean. I know we had the work on Canada Day, but hey, this doesn't feel like work when you have so much fun. Right on. And happy Canada Day, everyone out there listening. Happy Fourth of July. for those who aren't, those Americans who aren't listening to the Gentile and Constance American Propaganda Hour. Yeah.

And yeah, let's enjoy the last few games and let's get into an offseason and hope it's as good as that 20 minutes five years ago. Yeah, and it should be a lot of fun with the expansion draft, free agency, entry draft, all that stuff. So listen, that does it for this addition to the athletic hockey show. I want to remind you, check out our podcast this week, Pierre LeBron, Scott Burnside, two-man advantage edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Katie Strang, Rick Westhead. They've been terrific in their coverage of Chicago Blackhawks. They joined Burnside and LeBron on the podcast on Wednesday.

So download that and listen to it if you haven't had an opportunity. And like I said, we'll get you again next week, Sean and I on Thursday. And if you're not a subscriber with The Athletic, you can join us at theathletic. com slash hockey show. And you'll get a subscription for just $3.99 a month.