The Athletic Hockey Show - Connor McDavid eats a Carson Soucy crosscheck: is a suspension forthcoming?

Episode Date: May 13, 2024

On today’s Monday edition of The Athletic Hockey Show, Ian and Laz discusses Carson Soucy’s crosscheck to Connor McDavid’s face at the end of Oilers-Canucks Game 3, Brock Boeser in the Conn Smythe conversation, Arturs Silovs poise in the Vancouver net, Alexis Lafrenière coming into his own, if the Hurricanes are just a regular season team or not, Sam Bennett as public enemy number one, and more.Plus, The Athletic’s NHL insider Chris Johnston talks Leafs’ huge offseason, head coaching vacancies, potential UFAs Elias Lindholm and Nikita Zadorov, and more, and The Athletic’s own Jesse Granger discusses who should start in goal for the Bruins in Game 5 and Oilers in Game 4, betting odds for teams down 3-1 to make a comeback, Avs chances of winning with Jake Oettinger at the top of his game, and more. Subscribe to The Athletic: http://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show. Welcome back, everybody. It is your Monday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. It's Ian Mendez and Mark Lazarus with you. As always, to kick off your week in hockey, one of us is playing hurt, and you're going to hear it in a second. And it's not me.

It's the guy who's covering Rangers Hurricanes. You know, it's bad enough. Our listeners have to listen to me for an hour and a half every week. Now they have to listen to me sounding like this. So my humblest apologies to all. of our audience. I don't know what happened. I feel fine. I woke up. I sound like I'm dying. Guy wakes up after a night in New York City with a scratchy throat. Oh, okay. Dude, yeah, yeah. I had a 6 a.m. flight from Rale yesterday. I was in bed by 9 p.m. last night. Oh, man. You know, I don't know

if I've ever told you this story, but I covered the lockout, the 2012, 2012, 2013 lockout in New York City for Sportsnet. And on New Year's Eve, if you remember, there was like really accelerated heightened talks around the holidays. I was in New York City, Manhattan, at the Weston Times Square on New Year's Eve, 2012, December. And I was with Nick Kiprios and him and I were doing the hits for Sportsnet. And we were on the sidewalk all day. Las, I was so tired that I went for dinner with Kiprios at like nine. I was in bed in Times Square at like 10.45 and I woke up at midnight to the sound of people outside.

I just rolled over and went to bed. I'm telling you, Times Square on New Year's Eve, that's like my worst nightmare. Just your shoulder to shoulder. There's no bathrooms. You can't go anywhere. You have to get there 12 hours early. Like, no, that's not worth it to see a ball come down. I'm sorry.

It's not unlike when you watch, you know, Oilers Conachton, we'll get to. to that in the second. Or there's Canucks and there's fans in those outdoor viewing areas. Like, I don't know about you. Even in my 20s, I don't think I want to share, man. I want to sit down. Yeah, that's because we're old guys in our 40s. But even in my 20s at like the peak of my kind of, you know, I'm a crazy rabid fan, I don't think I'd want to watch a huge game at an outdoor viewing party where I'm standing around. It just, it's not appealing to. be i would rather take a carson susy cross-checked to the throat which maybe would explain why i sound like the second uh yes and that's what we call a segue hey i'm learning um so i stayed up like some people did on the eastern uh in the eastern time zone to watch Vancouver

adventin and as the game time expires carson suci and it was it Zedorov who hit him from behind and then suzy on the front yeah so look everyone is probably who's to this podcast, you probably have seen it. And if you don't just punch in Sousie, McDavid, you'll find the video instantaneously. Now, from the Vancouver perspective, they're going to say, oh, Carson Sousie was just trying to cross-check McDavid in his chest. And it was Zedorov who hit him from behind, sending, you know, McDavid down. And that's why he got kind of in the face and the neck or whatever.

I just don't think it's a great look for the league. when your marquee best player is getting abused like that after time expires. That's just me. From a perception standpoint, I don't like it. It shouldn't matter that is David. It shouldn't matter that it's not. Anytime you cross-check the throat, it's a problem. But it's the best player on the planet.

Here's the problem is those Canucks fans are correct. Like you can tell that Susie is lifting up his stick to cross-check McDavid. He gave him the old shove in the chest like he already did one. when Zadorov, Zadorov, that cross-check from Zadourov was so low in the spine. That's a 30, 30 cross-check. Like it's one thing to shove a guy in the shoulders.

He had him in the lower back, and McDavid just buckled. You ever been hit down there? That hurts. And your whole body just kind of folds like a cheap suit at that point. And that is why Sousie got McDavid in the throat. Now, does that matter?

Should that factor in? Is a cross-check to the throat, a cross-check to the throat, especially when, like you said, it's Connor McDavid. I think there's going to be a suspension here. If there's not, like you said, it's a terrible look for the league. But I do allow for the reality that that's not what Carson Susie was trying to do. But just like if Matt Rempe

takes a guy's head off, but he wasn't trying to, doesn't change the fact that he took a guy's head off, right? Yeah. The intent isn't the only thing that matters here. I think intent should sort of be weighed in. Okay, once you deem that this is illegal, it should be suspendable. Then you factor in intent to say,

okay, that was intentional. That's five games. If it's accidental still, that's a game or two. You know what I mean? Like intent, I'm with you. Intent isn't the only,

because think about it, if intent was the guiding force, then I'm pretty sure Jacob Truba should have gotten something for launching himself in the manner in which he did last week, right? Like, if intent was the old.

He tried to murder Martin Aches. Like, like he was, he went flying horizontal to the ice to try to, injure Martin H. Yeah, you can't legislate intent all the time. You have to legislate the results sometimes.

But, you know, the funny thing is, if nothing happens to Susie, aren't we all waiting for the columns from Edmonton and about the lack of kind of supplementary discipline? And all I can think about is Mark Spector, when, Speck went out, Vancouver fans in the media for complaining about officiating. And then this happens, right? Hockey has a sense of humor, doesn't it? The hockey gods. Oh, my God.

I don't know. So the McDavid thing, I'm with you. I think maybe this ends up in a suspension for a game or whatever for Susie. He's not getting, he's not getting thrown out for the rest of the playoffs. People that are calling for that. Don't understand. Yeah, the math, the math of player safety has always been one playoff game is equivalent to five regular season games.

That's always been the unofficial math. And Susie, I think, will get suspended for one game here, but that's the max he's going to get. And that is sort of taking away from the bigger story, which is Vancouver goes into Edmonton and takes home ice advantage right back from the O&OPS. And Archer Shilos continues. Shilos is like, this is such a great story.

And I wanted to point this out because people have been, I've been seeing this on my feed that Arters Shilos is the new, he is the NHL's Tom Brady. And the meme goes like, it goes like this. It's kind of funny because I guess they're the exact same height, six foot four, Brady and Shilos. They were both drafted in the sixth round. They both got their kind of entry into the league because of an injury.

You know, Brady was Bledsoe, Demko for Shilos. And they both won their first ever playoff game in dramatic overtime fashion. Laz, are we looking at the NHL's Tom Brady here in our team? Nikki Glazer is putting together her roast set as we speak. It's such a great story, but it's so funny because we all came into this series thinking, well, Edmonton's going to win because as good as Vancouver is, they're on their third string goalie. How many times did you read or hear the words third string goalie entering this series? And it's Edmonton that's in a goaltending crisis right now because Stuart Skinner is not getting the job done.

And it's, you know, even as coach is like, hey, we need more saves than this. I mean, it's an absolute crisis of goaltending right now in Edmonton, and everyone was worried about Vancouver's goaltending. Again, the hockey gods have a sense of humor, and every narrative we ever come up with going into these series always gets upended. Yep, yeah, it's remarkable that this guy is two wins away from putting his team into the conference final. And he's a big part of it. Like Vancouver's getting outshot every game.

You know, dry sidles clearly frustrated. you saw he made a comment about the posts and all that after the game. It's, it's a fascinating series to watch and Brock Besser last, like against Nashville, when he had that amazing set where he scored the tying goal and the overtime winner, and we all said, well, that's the Brock Bessor game. And then he turns around and has another three-point performance.

We thought for a minute he had a hat trick. They took that away. But we're kind of reaching the halfway point of the Stanley Cup playoffs. And you're going to hear Shosturkin as a, as a, you know, consmite guy, and that makes a lot of sense. Is Brock Besser in the conversation for the consmite trophy at this stage of the game? I mean, he's playing his way into it, right? He has to be the way he's coming up with these big goals.

You have to look at like Amiga Sabanajad. I mean, you know, McDavid and Drysail are putting up gobs and gobs of points. But, you know, right now, I mean, Bessert is firmly in the conversation. If Vancouver keeps advancing here, he's going to be as bigger reason why as any. And that's, you know, the consmite narrative doesn't really kick in until the conference finals, I feel. That's when you really start bearing that because you know which teams are in the final four and who's got a chance. And a lot of times you'll see a, like I remember in 2013, Patrick Kane won the Con Smyth. He didn't do squat until game five of the Western Conference

final. But then he just absolutely blew up and he winds up winning the Con Smyth instead of Corey Crawford. That happens. So it's way too early to call. But through this halfway point, we're not even at the halfway point, Bessor's right in the middle of the conversation. Would you ever want to be or would you be on board with the idea of like, you know, after every series that there's a series MVP that's picked or is that kind of, is that overkill? No, that's like international hockey where you get like the player of the game. Like, no, we have, I love player of the game. It's, no, I don't want that.

I don't, the award should be special. It should be for the whole playoffs. Like, I don't even like how the NBA has a finals MVP. Yeah. Like, I feel like it should be the totality of the playoffs. So I know I don't want that. Not at all. I'd love to talk some hurricanes and rangers with you.

That's the series you are covering. You're on the ground. And I got to say you, and I think it was, it wasn't on X. Actually, it was on Facebook. You posted on Facebook that you had a flight booked on Sunday morning to either back to New York or to Chicago. And you're like, I don't know where I'm going. And I wrote back to you before the game ended. I said, last.

you got to invoke the rule of maximum inconvenience, which is the law of maximum inconvenience states that there are no sweeps. There's always the extra trip. So I thought your column was really good after the Keynes came back to win game four after Freddie Anderson gives up the, oh my God, that's every Freddie Anderson goal in playoffs.

And you kind of led your story with it. And it's like, but they found a way, right? But what was interesting is I really like the tone of your piece because it's kind of like, you know, the hurricanes can make a case that maybe this could be 2-2 or they're in it. And then I made the mistake of reading the comments and all the people are like, this is a joke, K's don't have a chance, yada, yada, yada.

Well, I got to tell you, this is going to be really interesting to me. I don't want to say that a team that's up 3-1 that won the president's trophy that's at home has a ton of pressure to close it out. But I'm just saying that, you know, if I'm the hurricanes, I could buy into the narrative that this should be 2-2. That's all I'm saying. That's just it. Whenever it's 3-0, it's over, right?

And everyone thinks it's over. And then invariably, the team that's down 3-0 wins game 4 at home. And they're like, well, maybe, I don't know here. And, you know, especially with the way the Hurricanes have played, they've been the better 5-on-5 team for a lot of these, a lot of this series. They were 0 for 16 on the power play until they got the game. winning goal in game four. So you wonder, all right, well, if this was a top three power play in the league during the regular season, if that opens the floodgates, do the Rangers have something to worry

about? And they're not there yet. It was not meant to, like, say that Carolina's coming back and win this. Only four teams in NHL history have ever pulled off the reverse sweep. It is super unlikely that Carolina does it. But you can see a path, can't you? You can see a team like Carolina making a run like that. And all, that's what I wanted to write is, like, I'm like, you know, that's what I wanted to write,

Now at least Carolina believes it can do it because they finally pulled one out. And that has to put the seed of doubt into the mind of the Rangers. The smallest little thing. Well, shoot, we didn't close it out. We had a chance to close it out. It was tied in the third period

and we didn't get it done. Now we have to go back to the garden. We better win this one or we got to go back to Raleigh. Oh, boy. Then all of a sudden you're potentially setting up at game seven. So we see this narrative with every series that goes 3031. But Carolina is a good enough team

that it at least seems plausible. It's plausible that they come back and do this. Exactly, because they weren't dummied in every game. It's not like they've been losing by three goals, four goals. But I do think it's interesting that after game three, your column was, again, I think really spot on, which is like, are the Carolina Hurricanes at a crossroads? As an organization in their developmental or competitive arc,

are they at a crossroads? because it's very easy to say Toronto's at a crossroads, right? Like, oh, yeah, the Leafs, absolutely. They got to blow it up. They can't get past the hurdle. Are the hurricanes, if they end up losing this series, at a similar point where they've built a team that's good enough to win a division

or be 100 point in the regular season, good enough to win a playoff round, just not good enough to win in the conference final? Is that like, and what do you do here? Well, that's what's tough, right? Because, you know, you go back to the conference final, last year, they got to the conference final. That's a major accomplishment. And they got swept, but they got swept by one goal every game. One of those games was part of jruple overtime. Another

game was overtime. This series, all three games they've lost have been by one goal. So they're right there. But I mean, if you flip a coin 25 consecutive times and it comes up tails 25 consecutive times, you start wondering there's something wrong with this coin, right? Like that's not the way this is supposed to work. That's hockey is a fluky game. I get it. But if you lose by just enough every single time. And maybe you're a regular season team and you're not built for the playoffs. And maybe the way Carolina is built without superstars, you know, they have a lot of various, Sebastian Aho is so good.

But he's not a megastar. He's not an Artemian. He's not a Connor McDavid. He's not an Austin Matthews. The defense is really good. Goaltending, they've never really invested in goaltending. Freddie Anderson, Piotr Kiechekhov, Antironta. These are not number one goalies by championship standards.

standards and they think that the system is going to carry them and the system's not doing it. Does Rod Rindamore, assuming he even comes back as a, he doesn't have a contract yet for next year? Does he loosen up his, his system is so rigid and so strict with the way they play, it doesn't really allow for the kind of creativity that's a Badajad and Panera putting off in this series. Do you have to loosen that up? Do you have to go after more high-end talent? Do you have to rethink the goaltending?

Do you have to rethink the way you're doing things or is winning a round or two in the playoffs enough every year to keep you going? That's what ownership has to decide in Carolina. That's what management has to decide in Carolina. That's what the coach has to decide in Carolina. Yeah, it's really interesting because they're on the verge of almost becoming, you know what San Jose was from like 2009 to 16 where you're like, man, every year they should be a cup contender.

They are a cup contender. And I mean, it eventually did happen. I mean, San Jose got to the cup in 16. But most teams would soft their left arm to have a run like Carolina's hat. They've been one of the three or four best teams in the league for four or five years now. Like they're, it's such a well-run organization. Everybody respects them. Everybody likes what they've done.

They've got such a good fan base. They've built up through all this. But if the idea is winning championships, they're not winning championships. It's happening over and over and over again to the point where it is just like the Leafs. How can you keep running it back knowing it doesn't work in the park? playoffs. You know, you mentioned two names of the Rangers and Zabanajad and Panarin, and they've been good in this, in the Stanley Cup playoffs. The guy that is really impressed me, but it's more of a function of maybe I expect Zabandajat and Panarin to be good because I think they're elite

players. But the guy that is really jumped off, kind of leaped off the TV screen for me is Lafranier. And it's been really fun to watch this guy play with confidence. And Rangers fans will tell you, that it's always been there. He hasn't had the chance. He hasn't had the opportunity. Is this the coming out party for the kid? Are we seeing the upside? And what are you seeing in person with Lafranierre?

You called him a kid, and you're right. He's 22. He's 22. And we had all written him off as not quite a bust, but certainly not a number one overall pick. He's not a difference maker. He's a third liner. He's a grinder.

He's fine. Well, look what happened. He gets a new coach who puts him on the top line with great players. Oh, look, he's a great player. And yeah, this is what we're seeing. We've been seeing it all season. And the fact that he's continuing it into the playoffs really underscores that, you know, opportunity matters here. There's a reason why every young player who comes to Dallas seems to succeed.

Because they're playing with good players in a good system on a team with good habits. And it puts you in a position to succeed. You know, a lot of these young guys like Adam Fantilli or Leo Carlson, they go to teams. They're playing with mediocre line mates and they don't pop right away. Jack Hughes had, what, seven goals his first year? Yeah. His second year, he got like 11 or 15. He was too small and skinny and he was a bust.

Now he's one of the five or six best players in the world. Like sometimes it takes a few years to not only develop the strength you need, but also to just kind of understand your game. And also just to get that right opportunity with the right line mates. I mean, I'm not saying if you put me with Artami Panera, and I'm not scoring 30 goals, I'm just going to fall down a lot. But someone like Lafranier, you put him in that position, and he can be the player that he always knew he could be.

So it's kind of a lesson in patience with these prospects. We expect them all to come in and be Austin Matthews and score four goals in their first game. You know, Conor Bedard was fantastic this season. But there are probably people out there like, you know, 60 points, whatever. But look who he was playing with. Look what he's doing now.

I mean, I know it's against Great Britain and Denmark, but look what he's doing in the world right now. He's scoring two goals every game because he's playing with players that can keep up with him. And that's what Lefrenier has now. He has the opportunity. He has the confidence. And he's making the most of it. You know, Slavkovsky in Montreal is the same way. His first year, people are like, this guy can't play. And then you put him with Suzuki and Caulfield. And guess what? He's riding shotgun with those guys.

And suddenly it looks like he could be like a Chris Kreider type of power forward that could score and do a lot of things. I always think about Joe Thornton and Owen Nolan. When they first broke in the league, go back and look at their rookie years. And they were awful statistically. Didn't look like they fit in the league. And Thornton ended up being a Hall of Famer. Nolan was one of the best power forwards of his generation. And you're right. But anyway, it's been a lot of fun watching Lafranier to me.

And even to some extent, Quentin Byfield. Like there was a period of time about 18 months ago, people were like, wow, Quentin Byfield and Alexis Lafranier are misses. Timmy Stutzler is the hit. And now I think they've all kind of come to a similar place. And it's just fascinating. Yeah, development is not linear. These guys don't just walk in and be great and they just only get greater.

Guys like McDavid and Matthews have really wrecked the career. Even Nathan McKinnon. Nathan McKinnon was really good right out of the jump. He was not what we know now, though. He was a 60, 65 point guy. He was good. He was not great. It takes time.

These guys are children. They come into the league and they are literal children. I mean, like, I hope to Bedard. He's less than six. years older than my oldest daughter. Like, she's in sixth grade. These are literal children coming into a league of grown men. And sometimes it's going to take them a year or two.

And we just need to learn to allow that. We have to give them that grace to figure things out and to grow a little bit. I look forward to Lazan's next column, how you've given Bedard patience, but not your kids. Damn it, my kids, they're not getting the same amount of grace and patience that. You got a one-year math test. Yeah, exactly. Hey, let's, can we just bring our producer Chris Flannery in here for his second? Because Chris produces the Monday edition of The Athletic Hockey Show.

Chris is a huge New York Rangers fan, diehard Rangers fan. And Chris, I believe this weekend, you rub shoulders with hockey, well, is royalty the right word? What's the word? Tell our listeners who you ran into on the weekend and what you were wearing. Yeah, you know, I had a run-in with NHL commissioner, Gary, but not a run-in. I mean, it was fine. I had a pleasant exchange with him, but he was at an event. Sam Bennett did him right in the face, didn't you?

Yeah, of course. Yeah. Listen, things are going great for the range. I have no reason to be mad at the commissioner right now. No, I was at an event for my daughter, and he happened to be there as well. And yeah, I said hi to him, and I was, of course, wearing an Rami-Pan t-shirt as I wear a ranger shirt out every day now. And he said he liked the shirt.

He said, you guys are up seven nothing. I said, yep, I feel good. Of course, we lost that night. But, yeah, I had a nice exchange with commissioner. Don't you love the idea of, like, Gary Bettman, just, like, in line at a Dwayne Reed. Like, like, these guys outlaw, like, I remember when I was covering high school football, there was this coach of Griffith High School. He was Russ Radke.

And he was, like, the, like, the scariest, meanest, most intimidating coach you could ever imagine as a high school football. He was a local legend. Like, people revered him. him. And I went to Menard, which is like the Home Depot in the Midwest. And we met Menards. And I see a rest of Recky just walking around lost. And he's trying to get help from like a teenage girl who works there. And he's like, excuse me, miss, excuse me, can you tell me where to fight? And I just love the idea of these people having to do normal things in their

everyday lives that we do. You think of them like in their ivory towers. And Gary Betman never leaves, he's always wearing a suit and he never leaves his office. But like they have to go in, you know, by Metamusel or whatever sometimes too, you know? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we actually he did comment he goes boy we're getting our steps in before this thing we had to walk around this huge building this way's locked there's a fence it was a whole you know it was a whole thing so now now did it ever cross your mind to say uh gary i'm i'm chris flattery i produced the athletic hockey show would you like to jump on the pod at some point did that ever cross you mind you know it did i was juggling my other daughter i was holding flowers for for the older one it was a dance

recital thing it was hot i'm trying to get the end It crossed my mind and then it fell out immediately. Do you think now, like, Betman celebrities, like they're getting requests like that? Like, hey, would you ever want to jump on my pod? And how would you answer that if you're Gary Betman or a celebrity or an athlete? And someone's like, would you like to jump? What's the polite way to duck out of that? Yeah, it's always like, it's someone who like, you know, whose podcast has like 37 listeners

on YouTube or something like too. It's not like it's a, you know, a national. media outlet podcast. Everyone's got a podcast now. So they see like Ryan Gosling in the street. Hey, you want to be on my podcast? We talk about Pokemon Go or something. Yeah, it's a tough ask, I think.

But anyway, he was very nice. Had a little conversation and there we go. Okay. You didn't boo him the whole time? Yeah. You know what? Part of me wants that to be the turning point of the series. And the Rangers lose four in a row.

And you just go back to Gary Bettman saying, you guys are seven and all. I mean, right now it does stand as the turning put because they have not won since that conversation. Oh, my God. I love it. You know what, Laz mentioned, as you mentioned, Sam Bennett in there. Boy, you want to talk about the biggest villain in this year's playoffs. Is there a bigger villain or a heel right now than Sam Bennett in Boston? there's the hit on Marchand,

which now the reverse angle, that looks bad. And then he pushes Charlie Coil in the swayman. If you're a Bruins fan, are you angrier at Beddett for the Marchand thing or the goalie interference thing? I think the goalie interference thing you're angrier at the league, right? Because you think that you got screwed by the replay system.

You know, you knock Marchand out of the series. That's public. And it always works this way, right? there's always a villain that, quote unquote, steps up during the playoffs. Someone comes in that we weren't necessarily, you know, if you were looking for a villain going into the series, you'd be looking at Marchand, you'd be looking at Nick Cousins, somebody like that. But here comes Sam Bennett around the outside, and he's just blowing away the field in the

jerk derby here, and it's awesome. It's fantastic. As an unbiased observer of that series, you love seeing a guy at the center of all that, and he seems to revel in it. He's not ducking the press. He's answering questions. He's defending himself out there. he's everything you want in a postseason performer because he's producing too.

He's not just the guy out there. He's being Brad Marchand. That's the irony of it, right? I'll tell you what, why don't we bring in Chris Johnston here? He's standing by to jump in here. There we go, CJs. And we just gloss over the term jerk derby too. I'll just, I love that.

Chris Johnson, welcome back, as always to the Monday pod. That goalie interference in the Boston, Florida game, there's a lot of people who think that should have been goalie interference. Like when you watched it or saw the replay or whatever, did you think that Boston legitimately had the case there on goalie interference? Oh, for sure. I mean, watching in the moment in real time, I thought that that goal was going to be, you know, come back.

I mean, you've seen the wording of the rule. I'm sure if you've been on hockey Twitter at all in the last 12 or 15 hours, you know, about instances where a player is pushed in and impedes a goalie for making a save, where that does qualify as goal tender interference. Now, you know, what the NHL situation room ruled is that

even if that hadn't have happened that they didn't deem that Jeremy Swayman could have made the save, could have been in a position to stop that puck. You know, it's a judgment call at the end of the day. It's not a black and white rule. And that was a judgment of the league.

But I will say absolutely 100% in the moment, I was thinking that goal was going to come off the board when that challenge was going down. I don't know about you guys. I wondered if the fact that coil entered the blue paint on his own before he got the shove from behind, if that played into it at all, he put himself in Swayman's way. He didn't make contact with him, but he put himself in the blue paint before he got shoved into it.

I wonder, because there's no real, correct me if I'm wrong, CJ, there's no real like uncatchable pass rule in hockey. There's not a, it's not supposed to be a judgment call on whether he could have made the save or not, right? Well, I think it's more that they view that he didn't prevent him. him from making the save, I guess. You know, what the interference rules designed to do is essentially say the goal he was interfered with and couldn't have, you know, done his job.

And, you know, that was one of the points Jeremy Swam and made to the reporters after he said he couldn't do his job. But, you know, it's, it is a fine line. I don't envy, look at, I don't envy the video coaches that have to basically trigger these challenges to their head coaches. And I don't envy being on the video room because, you know, at least, and look, it offside can be murky too. but there's certain instances.

Like if the rule changes go through next year is expected and a puck over the glass is reviewable, I mean, as long as you have video and you can show that a player shot the puck over the glass, okay, that's an easy challenge, assuming you have the right angles, which I don't think you probably do in all the ranks. It's just, it's tough in this case. And, you know, one thing that they can't challenge, of course, is whether it should be a cross-checking or interference call against Bennett either.

You know, you can't, that aspect of it isn't challenged because, you know, arguably he should have been able to be shoved at all in that instance. And yeah, it's a tough one. Look, I don't, as I say, I'm not going to sit here and be like, it's a travesty. I understand if you're a Bruins fan, you're feeling that way today. I don't know that it's cut and dried, but my goodness, I mean, that looks like it embodies the rule.

And it just does highlight the fact that there is some subjectivity to these decisions. You know, CJ, when we have Yon, obviously we're in the thick of the Stanley Cup playoffs, but there are lots of news and notes bouncing around the league. And in particular, as it pertains to the coaching carousel, there's a bunch of openings. But we want to start by focusing on Toronto because on Friday, you know, a pretty important press conference, I think, with Keith Pelly, Brenda Shanahan, Brad Trilliving.

And, you know, I know you wrote about it. I know you watched it. I know you were there. Like, what were your takeaways now? We got three days to kind of let that marinate. What were the big takeaways from? that huge Toronto press conference on Friday. Well, it's one of those ones.

It's like a once in a decade kind of press conference. I mean, you don't typically have essentially a representative of ownership, which is how I view Keith Pelley. He's the CEO and president of MLSC broadly. Obviously, you know, reports directly to the board of directors for the team. And, you know, he himself kicked off by saying, I'm not going to make this a habit. But, you know, when you have someone at that level give a press availability, I think it signals where the Leafs are at.

in terms of, I don't know if I call it, crisis management. I mean, Keith Pelley's been on the job also only five weeks. He hasn't had anything formal like that before. So I think it was a bit of two birds, one stone. But, you know, this is a pretty critical offseason for the team.

We've seen them already make the decision to fire Sheldon Keith. And they're currently searching for his replacement as a coach. I think there's certainly good reason for some to wonder about Brendan Chanahan's, you know, future with the organization. You know, he's going to remain in the role as the president of leaves. moving forward. But, you know, it is a very strange one. But when MLSC last signed Shanhan to a contract, they said the final year was 2024, 25 of that deal, meaning this next season,

you know, I asked him to clarify that. He wouldn't at the press conference. There's some suggestion. Maybe he's signed a little longer. Point being, he's getting to the end of a contract. He's got a new boss and he's got one, you know, playoff series victory for the team in his 10 years on the job. And so, you know, it's a big offseason. And obviously probably the biggest takeaway if you're a follower of the team is that they've essentially said every hockey decision is on the table. And that's a departure from prior years where usually at the end of the season, like, we're not trading Barner. We're not trading to Varner. We're not trading Tavares. You know, quit with your rumors.

Media, nothing to see here. This works. I mean, this was the first time someone at that level, the organization has acknowledged that they're going to look at a more fundamental change to the way the team's constructed. And me, it's a logical thing to get to when you've seen so many. playoff years time and time again, them meet and end much sooner than they had hoped. How difficult a path is that the way this roster is constructed to rethink the whole thing? I mean, we know about the contract status of the big four, but how difficult and how many years might it take for them to really fundamentally change the way this team operates?

Well, it's hard to imagine you do it in one summer, right? I mean, you might make one big trade this summer, but, you know, there's a lot of risk inherent with it. I think that's partially why they didn't do it sooner, even though they're, you know, as recently, you go back to 2021. That's the year they were up 3-1 against Montreal. That season they had by far in a way the best record in what was the North Division, the weird pandemic year that we all probably try to forget.

But, you know, they were a pretty decisive favorite in that series had a 3-1 lead and lost it. From that point on, I think the clock's been ticking on the big four, whatever we core for, whatever you want to call them, because there's certainly been a lot of discussion in the market around that. And they've been just resistant to even the idea of it. And I think it's because, let's face it, the idea of, If you go to Mitch Marner and even if you get him to consent to waving as no movement clause, I mean, how do you win that trade?

What does that look like? Are you, you know, yes, you're making a fundamental switch to your team. You're freeing up a lot of cap space to do other things with. But, you know, free agency, as we all know, is no panacea in this league. I mean, it's not a place you want to go in spending big too often in free agency and expect, you know, positive results for your organization. And so, yeah, I think it's a long way of saying Bradshaw Living's been on the job as GM now almost a year coming up on his year anniversary.

And I think it's clear he wants to build a defense more in the mold of what he did in Calgary and what he likes, which is big, tall, physical players. He traded for a couple of those at the deadline, but I think that there's work to be done there. You know, if you're trading out of one of those top forwards, I mean, you're going to have to replace some offense. You're obviously going to have to sign or trade for other players that can float those roles.

And the goaltending is in a big state of question mark. They've only got one goaltender to NHL level signed for next year. And so I see a lot of potential potholes along that road to trying to build this team back up into being a contender. But I mean, the good news is, is you've got Austin Matthews signed for four more years. They extended William Meelander eight years. I mean, I do think you have a couple seasons to play with to try to get that right. And, you know, it feels like they're taking, you know, they're getting off the interstate right now and they're going in a different direction. And so it might mean a short-term step back to what they hope is a longer-term jump forward.

And obviously, as part of that equation is the head coach. And they got to figure out who's going to coach this team. But not only that, CJ, there's a domino effect. And the coaching dominoes could fall maybe this week, maybe next week. And it's important to remind our listeners, there are a half dozen openings in the league, right? Here in the middle of May, there's Toronto, there's New Jersey, there's winners, Newpeg, L.A., Columbus, Seattle.

Yeah, that's sick. Like, you're middle of May. So how do you think this plays out? Like, do you think this week we might see a couple of those dominoes start to, start to fall? And do any teams start to worry that, uh-oh, they might want the guy that I want, I better be proactive. There might be a bit of that. I think the Leafs certainly don't intend to drag this out too long. You know, Craig Brube was in Toronto over the weekend and had a couple sets of interviews with the Leafs Brass.

I think Tom McClellan is here on Monday doing the same thing. I'm not sure at this point in time the Leafs list is any longer than that. Now, there's obviously room to amend it. If in some weird scenario where, you know, if the hurricanes end up losing and everything falls apart and Ron Briddemore doesn't get his extension, maybe, you know, maybe there's a chaos option there. But I think for the Leafs at this point in time, it's probably one of Brubay or McClellan getting the job.

And so, you know, given that one of them is already interviewed and the others in the process are just about to do so now. I mean, I don't see any reason that needs to stretch out much more than that. You know, what's interesting is Brubay, you know, has talked to New Jersey. I think he's due to have an interview with the Winnipeg for their opening. I mean, you're right. There is a lot of crossover, much like with Travis Green to talk to a couple of teams before ending up in Ottawa.

I mean, it is a carousel this year. And we just had such huge turnover. I'd say the one positive is there's a lot of coaches with some degree of experience that are out there, you know, able to be hired. and, you know, I do think those seats do start to fill up now because, you know, we're probably not going to, I mean, coaches occasionally get fired after a second round series loss, but it's pretty unlikely, right? I mean, I don't know that there's going to be any new names to enter the fray again,

unless I mentioned Rod Brindamore, who, you know, I think has sort of like a handshake deal with Carolina on what his extension would look like, but, you know, nothing signed until it's signed. And, you know, their season, you know, we'll see, we'll see where that ends up. But beyond that, I don't know that there's going to be anyone new available that might change things. I suppose you might talk about Joel Quenville, but at this point in time, Joel still is not eligible to work in the NHL. At least that's my understanding. So, you know, I think the teams have to kind of zero in and make some decisions here. But this has been

the weirdest coaching year in the time I've been around as a reporter. I mean, I think we're up to 19 coaches. I'm honestly losing track that have been switched out in 12 or 13 months now. And, you know, there's still, I mean, L.A. has an interim coach. I know there's maybe a world they bring back Jim Hiller. I mean, there's just, it feels like there's, way more dynamics. I mean, even Travis Green finished a year as New Jersey's interim coach, and then he goes to that. Ottawa, you know, the turnover is incredible, and I don't see it slowing down, quite frankly. And now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the league does not like teams making announcement like this during the Stanley Cup final, right? So we got like two and a half

weeks here to fill a lot of these jobs. Otherwise, you kind of have to step back and wait a little while before you can make your hire, right? Yeah, I mean, I don't know that there's a former rule against that, but certainly as a rule of thumb, that they don't, like anything taking away from the Stanley Cup final, which I can understand. But I mean, it's an important two to three weeks on the calendar because they usually stretch the final out over a long period of time. And obviously there is business getting done. But yeah, I think, I think a lot of these will start getting filled up just because, as I say, the pool's not going to grow. These teams are all well into the interview process and they just got to make some

decisions. I think a lot of us were excited about the idea that there were new coaches coming in, like guys like Knoblock and Carberry. And we were starting to finally see instead of reach some of these new names get their chances. But then you look at your LaViolette doing what he's doing in New York and what Peter DeBoer is doing. And then so a sudden it's like, we're just going to keep getting the same coaches over and over again, aren't we? Because everyone, like, Toronto's not going to bring in an untested, unproven first

year coach at this point, not again, right? No, not a chance. I mean, and when they brought Sheldon Keefe in, obviously there's a high degree of past tenure there with Kyle Dubus. They'd work together in the Ontario Hockey League. They won an HAL title together. So even though he was a first time NHL coach, I think there was more comfort than you might have. And, you know, what it comes down to me is if put yourself in the GM

shoes, if you're making that decision, it's a little bit more risky going with the unproven guy, right? I mean, I guess you could argue, it's all about are you, are you going for upside or you're just going to like protect yourself? But I mean, with a lot of these proven coaches, you've seen them have a degree of success. You've seen them in Pierre Lavillette's case, has done it in a number of different cities, taking multiple teams to Stanley Cup finals. I just think there's a lot of comfort in that if you're the one who's responsible for making the decision. You know, it's something even Ottawa wrestled with. I mean, the senators coaching search was probably the most exhaustive of any of the ones out there just in terms of looking at a vast number of candidates, as Ian would know.

And I think ultimately when they came down to getting to making a decision, you know, having someone with a little bit of having been there before, you know, brought a bit more comfort, especially because the senators are at a point where they clearly have to take a step forward as a team. and there's just a chance that there's more growing pains with a first time NHL head coach. So I think that's how you get to the idea of retreads. And also, look, if you're going to replace 19 coaches, there's a lot of, there's a lot of experience people out there to be hired too. So there's probably a few different factors that weigh into it. And I think certainly when you have a team that's trying to win a Stanley Cup next year,

like the Leafs are, we can debate whether they should be thinking that way or not. But, I mean, that's kind of the mode they're in. You know, it's just hard to put someone new into that job versus, you know, if it ends up being Craig Brubay, who I think is the favorite, he's at least taking a team to the top of that mountain before. CJ, you mentioned Sheldon Keith's name, and do you feel like it's just like a slam dunk he ends up in New Jersey? I wouldn't go that far just because I'm not sure if he wants to work again yet.

And I think he's still kind of going through that process with his family. I mean, Sheldon Keith aged like a president at his time into Toronto job. I think that the head coaching job is a very difficult. It's a hard job everywhere. The hours are insane. Like every coach in the league works hard, but especially the immediate tension in place like Toronto. I just think there's a lot to manage there.

And he's still got two years under contract to the Leafs. So he's going to be paid for the next two years, whether he works or not. And I think, you know, he probably has the confidence. Okay, he didn't have the playoff success that was demanded of him in Toronto.

But if you look at coaches with 300 NHL games coach, he's got the highest points percentage of anyone in history. So I think he can have the confidence that if he doesn't take a job in this round. If maybe he just decides to, you know, take a breather, you know, reflect, refresh, all those things, that there'll be other opportunities from down the line. But, but certainly the devils have a lot of interest there. You know, they've seen Travis Green leave. It looks like Baroube, who was one of their other candidates, you know, could end up somewhere else. And so, you know, I definitely see a high level fit. I just don't know if, you know, when push comes

to shove, if Sheldon's ready to jump right back behind a bench again right now. I'd say you don't want to wait for next round because every job will be just filled. And there might not be a lot of firings next year, but it seems like in the NHL doesn't seem to matter anymore. It's true. And I think it's probably a hard spot to be in. I mean, there's nothing equivalent.

I mean, unfortunately, we know some colleagues that have been forced into losing their jobs, but we don't have the equivalent in our industry. But I can't imagine having to make that choice in the sense that he knows he's going to be paid well, his family's taken care of for a couple years. Like, you can imagine some time off might not be bad.

I mean, I don't know if our average listener out there, it realizes that coaches are working like 17 to 18 hours a day. it's a very exhaustive demanding position and it's a rare time to maybe get that break, but at the same time you feel like, you know, out of sight, out of mind. And so I imagine there's a bit of a pull that you want to get back there and work. And so, you know, as of this, at the time of recording this, I don't think Sheldon's got to that point where he's made up his mind either way, which way he's going to go on that.

But, you know, I might be inclined to take some rest in his issues and make sure that mentally I'm in the spot I need to be when I jump back into the fire. Yeah, if anyone wants to pay me a million. of dollars to not work for a couple of years. I'm available to say. You could be that guy, Laz. Hey, you know who's going to be getting millions of dollars this summer, guys? A couple of Vancouver connects pending UFAs that they picked up from Calgary, right?

In Alias Lindholm, Nikita Zedorov. And C.J., as we start to look ahead to the summer, boy, those two guys in particular, it feels like maybe they're really upping their value with the way they're playing for Vancouver in the postseason in Zodorov and Lindholm. Exactly. this is why it's not a bad thing to get traded at the trade deadline if you're on a team that's headed not to the playoffs because it does give you this platform gives you a chance to have a big playoffs when everyone's watching frankly and it's going to be fresh in people's minds and and

you know what's interesting to me is Lindholm in particular it did not go well when he first got to Vancouver I know he was injured a bit late in the regular season they were they were sort of having a difficulty slotting him in their lineup he spent a lot of time on a third line it wasn't as productive as he'd been as a member of the flames, kind of being used in a different type of role. But, you know, lo and behold, it gets to the playoffs and he's scored some pretty big goals for that team in games that have helped, you know,

help win them the game. And, you know, I think that he's done, done wonders for his market. I'm not saying it would have totally plummeted based on one thing. But, I mean, there's, as much as, you know, someone like Elias Linholm has been in the NHL 10 years or whatever it's been, and people know who he is, scouts have obviously scout him for a long time.

There is some recency bias here. And I think, you know, even the world hockey championships are going on right now. Like one thing that Team Canada is looking at when they're looking at making their, maybe bottom of the roster decisions for the best on best tournament next year is who's performed well under the heat? Who have we just seen in these tournaments or in the Stanley Cup playoffs have big moments? And I think someone like Lindholm and Zedorov in particular are showing their value. And, you know, we'll see if there's a time in place where the Canucks are trying to sign those

guys or it might just be that they're pricing their way out of what the Canucks can afford. in their structure. And the beautiful thing right now is they don't even have to worry about this stuff. It's kind of the results are taking care of themselves. But I agree with the premise that they probably have up their value as much or more than anyone just with the way that this playoffs has started. And certainly, if Vancouver plays into the conference final or beyond,

you know, the dollars, the price tag is going up even more. So I'm sure their agents are loving it. Well, tell you what, CJ, we'll leave it there.

What do you got coming up this week? If you want to give us a little preview of what's, what's on the docket for you? I'm actually got a pack this afternoon and I'm heading to Prague for the World Hockey Championship. So maybe that's why I referenced it there. I was fresh in mind that going over there to pursue a few different stories. So I don't know how quickly. I've joined the Gulch, my friend.

I've actually never been to Prague. I've traveled extensively in Europe, but this is one place I've missed. So I'm not upset about the destination. I've only heard great things. I've heard it's in Ostrava too, right? I remember Seth Jones was complaining that there's nothing to do with no Strava. Oh, was he? Yes, a couple weeks ago.

He's been there before for some tournament. Yeah, it seems to, that's always like the secondary site when the Czechs hold of a major international event. I don't know that I'm going to get to Estrava. That's TBD, but I'll certainly be at the games in Prague for the next week or so and looking forward to that. Awesome. Well, listen, safe travels overseas. And if it works out with the time difference, maybe we'll get you next week. If not, we'll get you again down the road.

And thanks again, as always, for dropping on the Monday pod. Right on, guys. Thank you. All right. Always great to have Chris Johnson drop by. And, you know, we started that conversation with CJ talking about all of this stuff with Sam Bennett, the goalie interference.

But I tell you, that reverse angle of the hit with Marchand, at first I thought, I don't know, you see the reverse angle. It looks like he intentionally takes his right hand arm and delivers a punch to the face head of Brad Marchant. It doesn't look like that. It doesn't look like that. That is what happened.

Yeah, absolutely. There's no greater. Sam Bennett can say all he wants that. He's praising what he punched a dude in the head. It's no gray area there. It sure looks that way. So, I mean, it's Marshan. Like, it had to be Martian, right?

Like, where was this camera angle? Why are we getting this like two days later? That's what I wanted to know. Do you think that there's no way the Department of Players' Safety didn't have access to them? back video, right? Right, right. Like, why, like, where was this?

Why didn't TNT show this earlier? Why didn't the league have this? How was that not suspendable to sucker punch a dude during play like that? A lot of questions about this Sam Bennett punch. Okay. And you're going to hear a lot of people with the live, you know, live by this sword, die by the sword, Brad Marchand. This is what you would have done.

And, like, but I don't think, like, I don't, like, I don't, care if that's Marshan or Posternak or whoever, DeBrus. I think if you deliver a punch like that to an unsuspecting or a player who's not bracing himself for said punch to the head, I think that should be a suspension. Now, I just don't understand how the league couldn't have had that view, that angle. It's one of those things that makes the league kind of look bushyly, right? I mean, the fact that this is coming out two days later, I feel like in any other sport,

we would have had that angle immediately. Like, why do we see it? And this is another reason why we need to be able to speak on the record to officials, to war room people. Explain why you didn't think that San Bennett interfered with Jeremy Swayman. Explain why you didn't know about this angle of Bennett punching Marchand in the face or why you didn't think it was that big of a deal.

There's no accountability. none, zero. Nobody ever has to explain themselves. You watch an NBA playoff game and the last five minutes are excruciating. It's just review after review after review. But after each review, the referee looks into the camera, says on a microphone, why he makes the call he made. And then after the game, they're available to reporters to a pool reporter at the very least. Why don't we have that kind of accountability in the NHL? It just comes across as Bush League. You know, I talked to Dave Jackson, a long time NHL ref, who now is kind of the ESPN analyst when needed. And, you know, he kind of changed my opinion on that. I think I always thought you better have them come out and explain. But he said, you know what? For the most part, he's like, like most of these calls are black and white. And even like Gold Tender interference, for example, he says the league puts out a statement,

it explains what do you want a referee to say? Well, those statements that the league puts out don't explain anything. They just say it was determined that there was no goaltender interference. There's no, there's no explanation. There's no elaboration. I just, I guess his point is, are you just adding gasoline to the fire? Yes. I want the fire to burn.

His point is, if a referee comes and says either, you know, I missed it or that's not the way I saw it. It's not like the irate fan base is going to be like, well, let, you know, that you're not, I guess his point is, and I agree, I don't think you're going to bring down the temperature like you think you will.

I guess. No, you know, I don't think you're going to bring down the temperature, but at least there'll be some accountability for it. Like, I want to know, did you decide that Swainman never had a chance at making that save? Is that within your realm of,

of capability? Are you allowed to decide that? Did you think that quite? Yeah. Did you think that coil skated himself into the blue paint beforehand? You know, the, the Carson Sousy cross-checked to McDavid. Does the fact that Zadora hit him low beforehand change the way you rule on that? I want to know answers to these things. We deserve to have the answer to these things. And I don't think it's right that we have to have Dave Jackson or Kerry Frazier or whoever. Those are the two referees we all call as reporters when we need to talk about these things.

They're not the ones making the actual calls. They're retired. I want the people who make these. actual call and the league that trains these referees to explain these calls to me. That's what I want. I want some accountability. And no, it will not put out the fire. It'll probably, like you said, pour gas on the fire. But too freaking bad. You know, this is the plus.

And here's what the league doesn't understand is the fire is good. The fire gets you talked about. The fire is what gets attention to the league. Controversity sells. Like, you can lean into that a little bit. and at least you have some kind of accountability in the process. But aren't they getting the fire, the controversy, the drama without the referees speaking? Like, like, again, I tend to think that I'm all for accountability and, and, but if you're saying

that you want it because it'll add to the fire, then I'm on board. But that's not why I want it, but I, it's, it's a benefit, I guess, if you're looking at that way. Yeah, yeah, I guess I look at it. when I see people saying, you know, have them be accountable because that'll help. I don't think it'll help. It'll just, you're going to become like a Vancouver and an Edmonton fan will simply become more entrenched in their positions, right? Yeah, probably, right.

And I'm not, I'm not looking for an explanation to really tamp down the controversy. I just want an explanation. I want to understand, like, when a coach benches his goaltender, we ask him about it. He explains his reasoning behind it. And even if we don't agree, at least we understand the thought process. I want to better understand why that call was made or not made. As a hockey fan, as a journalist, as a viewer of the sport, I want all the information I can possibly have.

And we have none of it when it comes from the officiating, which is every single spring the biggest talking point is the officiating. And you know what? And where, again, I'll side with you or agree is the way that you would make an official available to the media, it wouldn't be a press conference. It wouldn't be a scrum. It would be one designated reporter likely from, you know, maybe from a wire service like the Associated Press or something like that.

Somebody who's deemed to be quote unquote neutral or whatever. And they would be able to go in and ask, let's say, three to four questions. Then they would come out and they would hand a transcript out to all the media. Q&A style. So, you know, there is, there is an argument to be made. It's not like you're going to be grilling this guy up. No. And it's not, it's not on camera. It's a, it's a quiet conversation. I've been a pool reporter for situations like this before. And you basically ask your colleagues, what do we want to ask? And then you go in. Have you done a referee? You've never done a referee yet. I've done it in a basketball setting years ago in college basketball, actually. I've been a pool reporter. And yeah, you, you talk to them quietly. the hallway, respectfully and quietly. You ask two or three questions. He gives you answers, and you, you share it with the group.

That's all. And that's all we're asking for here. We're not asking for a Gary Bettman Stanley Cup final style press conference where, you know, a year's worth of questions get asked. I'm going to ask specifically, what did you see? Why did you make that call? You know, like in the, in the, it was in the first Hurricane Rangers game this week, the referees changed a call.

They did a review for a major as they can now. And not only did they knock it down to a minor, which they should have, they changed the player in the box, which was the right call, but not one they're legally allowed to make. That's not, you can't do that. It's in the rule book.

You can't do that. I would have liked to have asked, why did you do that? We never get to ask that question. Yeah. You know, let's bring in Jesse Granger here and get the goalie perspective because, you know,

that goalie interference call, on Coil and Swayman and Bennett has certainly been a talking point. And when Jesse joins us, by the way, on the Monday pod, it is presented by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with the athletic. And Jesse, I got to tell you, a lot of people are curious because Boston fans, we get it. You're angry. But what about from a neutral goalie perspective that you would be able to share?

So where do you come down on that one? Should that have been goalie interference or not? Yeah. So, I mean, you look at this and you say, okay, was the goalie's ability to make the save impacted? Clearly it was. Swayman's got a guy laying on him as he's trying to get back over to his right when the puck shifts directions. And in most of these situations, it's your own defenseman pushing a guy into you. In this situation, you can't, even though Bennett doesn't actually make contact with the goalie and doesn't go. into the crease. We can't just have guys throwing guys into goalies because if that were the case, wouldn't that become a strategy? You're battling a guy in front, just push him into his goalie. And then if the puck goes in, great. So to me, while there wasn't any actual contact between

Bennett and Swayman, we can't allow guys to just push guys into goalies and score goals because of it. Otherwise, it totally changes the way the net front play is going to happen, right? The argument seems to be that Swayman had no chance of getting over regardless. Do you as a goalie by that that there's no chance he could have gotten over? Totally disagree. Yeah. I think he's behind the play because the player landed on him and was not able to get across. I think, and this is another thing as a goalie, this is a goalie union pulling out your goalie card for sure.

Every time on a broadcast, I hear he had the goalie beat, but then he hit the post, it infuriates me because the goalie isn't beaten until the pocket. is in the net. The goalie is not beat until the puck is in the net. They always have a chance. And also another thing is you'll hear like, oh, that wasn't savable. Well, yes, it was. He just needed to read the play. You hear that all the time like, oh, it's backdoor shot. There was no way the goalie could save it. Well, if the goalie had read the play better and had gotten across sooner, he probably could have saved it. So I don't like unsavable shots. I don't like saying the goalie wasn't beat. And this is to me that same scenario. You can't say he wouldn't have got over there. He might have. You're going to lose your goalie card.

yours, you're blaming the goal for every goal ever scored now. Geez. Exactly. I mean, I just don't like calling them unsavable. There are goalies out there that would have saved it. Dominic would have found a way. He would have tossed his blocker off and not his hand over there. They're always savable.

Okay, Jesse, I want to ask you about this. We'll stay with the Bruins for a second. A few weeks ago, when the Stanley Cup playoff started, Jesse Granger was a noted advocate for Jim Montgomery to continue the goalie rotation, all during the regular season. It was a 1A, 1A type situation, 1A, 1A, 1A, 1B, whatever I want to call it. We have Lina Solmark, Jeremy Swayman. So I ask you this.

With the Bruins' facing elimination, down three games to one, if you're Jim Montgomery, do you go to Linae-Sallmark in game 5, or do you look at Swabin and say, look, we got outshot 41-18? Jeremy made 38 saves. We're going with him. He's not the reason why we're down 3-1. What do you do? to me, it's an easy decision.

I'm going with Swamen. He's been the better goalie. I think if you were going to rotate them, that would have been the preferable. I still would love to see what happens if you do that. To me, it's an interesting experiment. I would love to see what happens if you stick with the rotation all the way through the playoffs. He clearly didn't.

He made it three games. So give him a clap. That was longer than I thought he could have made it because these NHL coaches are so afraid to do anything different. But unsurprisingly, it did not last. he ended up going with the goalie that was playing slightly better. And that's after, like, Olmark lost his one start, but he was brilliant in that game. He had like 10 crazy high danger saves. Allmark was amazing.

But to me, it's been so long since he's played now. The whole point of the rotation is that you have both guys sharp at the top of their game. Neither of them have been sitting for weeks. They're ready to go. Now that you've picked Swamen as your guy, Olmark has been sitting on the bench for quite a bit of time. and the fact that Swayman's playing as well as he is. I mean, he's been great. The one thing is, even though I don't like that he went away from the rotation,

it has worked. Swamen's been great. They haven't gotten bad goaltending. Any of their losses have not been on the goaltending. So even though Montgomery didn't handle it the way I wanted to, just because I wanted to see this unique situation play out, I definitely don't think it has cost them the season. Swayman's been great.

So I would stick with Swayman rather than going. Plus, the other thing is if you go back to Allmark, now you've got like the constant goalie battle. And I don't like that. I don't like the goalies wondering while they're playing a game if they're playing well enough to play the next game. You either rotate or you pick a guy. Well, that's just it, right? This is why you don't do the goalie rotation if you're a coach because you have to make that call every single game.

You look at, you know, I'm going straight from here to the Hurricanes Morning Skate. I don't know if Rod Rindomor will tell us if it's Freddie Anderson or Piotrude Kachekhov. But the fact that he has to make that decision now is just one more thing. One more thing to get blamed for if you lose. One more thing that could go wrong. I mean, I thought it was pretty bold to go back to Freddie Anderson for game four. And Anderson gave up one of the worst goals I've ever seen, but he pulled out the win. He rebounded from that.

So who do you go with for game five? I don't know. If you just stick with one guy, it's a much easier decision. It's one less thing you got to worry about. But it's the same for the rotation. I totally agree with you that choosing a goalie every game and doing it based off performance is the wrong way to go. It's like you said, more things can go wrong.

More things can get you fired as a coach. Exactly. To me, if Montgomery would have said, we're rotating them every other game. Well, then now he doesn't have a decision. It's the same as rolling out the same goalie every time. If he had said before the playoffs, I don't care if you get a shut out and you give up nine, we're going back to, like, we are sticking with the rotation. It takes that decision off.

And it allows these goalies to do what they've done. I wrote it before the playoffs started. Jeremy Swaman hadn't played a game on less than three days rest. He did it like twice in the entire season. And now we're asking him to do it every single game. game for entire two months if they make it all the way. That seems ridiculous to me to not have a guy play regularly for four months and then ask him to do it in the most important time of the season.

I'll tell you, the goalie debate is really heating up at Edmonton. The Oilers lose game three on Sunday. And Stuart Skinner gets pulled to start the third period. They go to Calvin Pickard. Now, Stuart does come back in later, but that was more of a, hey, let's buy some time. Love it. It was a great. I loved it.

That's, you got to use that card. If, if you want to play that card, buy yourself some time. But the number is out there now, 881. Guys,

that is Stuart Skitter's career safe percentage in the Stanley Cup playoffs. 881. This isn't one game or two games. This is now 20-ish games of post-season experience. So, once again, we'll now get you to put on,

boy, I almost called him Chuck Knobloch. Chris Knoblox. The hat on Chris Knobloch. Are you going to Stuart Skitter in game four? Are you going to Calvin Pickard in game four?

But I'm Campbell, you cowards. Super Nuclear. Jack Campbell. What do you do? That would be great. No, for me it's Skinner. I think Skinner is significantly better goalie than Calvin Pickard is

at this point in their career. So even though Skinner hasn't been good. And I also think that while I certainly am not going to argue Stuart Skinner's played well in the playoffs, I do think that those numbers are a product of the type of hockey they play in front of him. They're trying to win every game six to five because they don't defend anyone and they just let McDavid and Dryside go wild and score all the goals. It's like they are not trying to pack it. Remember the one game against L.A. where they got up one nothing and Edmonton said, all right, we're going to hold everything to the outside. Well, they played a defensive protect your goalie style and they won one nothing.

Skinner made all the saves. I think that a lot of times they're playing a back and forth shootout style game where a goalie's going to give up a bunch of goals if you play that way. You're just betting you can score more than the other team and most times they have. I think Skinner certainly has some areas to be better. He's led in a couple soft ones and those are killers in the playoffs. But I still, if they had a legitimate one B that was like a guy that you could actually turn to and think he could lead you further, I don't know. If they had Jake Allen, if they had traded for Jake Allen and he was their backup, someone like that, I could see maybe going away from Skinner, but Calvin Pickard is a very good backup goalie, who was a very good

backup goalie a long time ago. I just don't think at this point in his career, he's ready to lead. The Oilers have a great chance still in these playoffs to go far. I just don't think Calvin Pickard's the guy to do that. So I was looking at the bed MGM odds for some of these series right now, and I wanted to see what the difference was with these two, three one series where you got Florida's up three one and the Rangers are up three one. Now, the Bruins are playing. plus 1,100 to come back and win the series. The hurricanes are just plus 475. Why do betters love the Carolina hurricane so much?

Yeah, it's curious. And especially because, like, you would say, okay, well, maybe is it the teams that are leading the series and there's just less confidence. But I feel like the Rangers and Panthers have both just been stomping teams in these playoffs. Like, they're both equally scary to me, the Rangers and Panthers. So I don't get it. I'm honestly surprised, especially with how, like,

the hurricanes have their, they're like goaly questions. We don't know who they're going to play, whereas the Bruins, obviously Swayman's been great. I'm very surprised by that. And then, and to go along with that,

the other, the two West series, their two to one also look very different. I mean, Dallas is up two to one. They're, they're minus 250. Vancouver's up two to one.

It's a pickum. It's minus 110 right now, aside. You get the same odds to bet on Edmonton and Vancouver, despite the higher-seated team Canucks being up to one. Nobody believes in the Canucks.

It's wild. I know. Nobody believes in the Kinnock. It is. Remarkable. Hey, before we let you go, Jesse, and wrap up the Monday pod. We haven't, last and I have really not talked at all about the Dallas-Colado series. And it's arguably, it's like a Western Conference final.

Here's the question for you. Jake Ottinger has a 950 or better save percentage. I think it's in three of his last five starts. It was dynamite again in game three. Is there any way the avalanche find a way to beat the way to beat? Dallas when Jake Ottinger is playing at this level. Yeah, I mean, when he's good, it's going to be hard. I thought that early in the Vegas Dallas series, that was the only reason Vegas was

even in the series was Ottinger wasn't playing well. The first two games, Ottinger led in a bunch of soft ones. And it seemed like Dallas would get nine high danger chances and not score on any of them. And then Vegas would finally get one and it'd go in every time. Obviously, now that Ottinger's playing better, it's going to be tough. Dallas is so deep. They're such a good possession team, Pete DeBore. I covered Pete DeBoer playing against the avalanche several times here in Vegas.

No one slows the aves down by just mucking up the neutral zone and not letting McKinnon get that speed where he curls around the back when he reloads. Nobody stops that better than Pete DeBoer. He's so good at finding ways to just slow that team down. Then you add in the fact that Dallas has the depth that they have every forward line. I mean, if you're getting to Donov's on the fourth line, he has high danger chances every night. Like that team is so deep. I thought that they were going to be a tough matchup for Colorado, and they have been so far, especially if Ottinger's playing well.

I do think that, so like to me, when I look at Jake Ottinger, what style of goalie is he? He's super technically sound. He's not the most athletic guy. He doesn't explode across the crease for those highlight real saves, but he's just in really good position. He has very sound technique. He doesn't allow anything to shoot at. I think if you're saying, okay, what kind of offense do you need to beat Ottinger, even when he's hot?

Well, the aves have that. They've got the cross-ice passes, the seam passes. that give you those backdoor one-timers. To me, that's how you beat Ottinger. You have to make him move. He's not as fast as some of the elite guys. So I think Colorado has what it takes, but man, Dallas and Pete DeBoer are locked in right now.

That team looks so good. Yeah, that's been a really fun series. Pierre LeBron is covering that one on the ground for us. So it's going to be a lot of fun watching game four of that series and game five as well. All right. We'll leave it there. Gentlemen, this was a lot of fun.

Laz, your voice held up, man. It held up. Not very well, but I made it. Yeah. And now, Laz is a, Jesse, Las has a couple of flights, I think, booked on Tuesday. I've actually got nothing.

I decided not to book any flights this time. Oh, man. Because I'm flying out of Newark, and there's like a million flights coming out of Newark every day. I'm going to wait through the last second this time and see if that's smarter. Okay.

Well, for your family's sake, I hope you're going back to Chicago for Carolina's sake. I hope you're going back to Rollin. Well, we'll find out soon enough. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks, everybody, for listening to this Monday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. If you've enjoyed this pod, leave us a five-star rating and review.

You know we certainly appreciate that. Your next edition of the Athletic Hockey Show comes away on Wednesday. It's the two Shams, Sean McAdoo and Sean Gentilly. That's the Wednesday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Las and I, Jesse Granger, CJ, and the gang. We'll be back next one.