The Athletic Hockey Show - Gauging concern level for the Panthers heading into Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final, luck has been with the Golden Knights in the postseason

Episode Date: June 8, 2023

Sean McIndoe is joined by Shayna Goldman to gauge the level of concern for the Florida Panthers heading into Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final on Thursday night. Also, situations where a goalie switch from Sergei Bobrovsky to Alex Lyon may be necessary. Then, they dive into Dom Luszczyszyn's piece about Vegas' level of luck in the postseason. Next, comparing the extensions for Cole Caufield with the Canadiens and Vladislav Gavrikov with the Kings, and to wrap it all up, they answer some mailbag questions and take a look back with "This Week in Hockey History".Have a question for the show? Email [e-mail] or leave a VM: [phone]!Subscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowHead to rhone.com/NHLSHOW and use promo code NHLSHOW to save 20% off your entire order.To get 15% off go to mudwtr.com/hockeyshow to support the show and use code HOCKEYSHOW for 15% off Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show. Welcome to a new Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. I am not Ian Mendes. Ian is enjoying a well-earned vacation. He is off in Europe somewhere. So I am Sean McIndoo, and I'm joined again by Shana Goldman today. And we will be teeing up. Game 3, the Stanley Cup final tonight.

We're going to check in on the Florida. take a look at Shana's concernometer, figure out just how worried should Panther fans be heading into game three. On the Vegas side, we are going to get into potentially some controversial territory, because we're going to talk about luck and whether the Golden Knights have been lucky so far on this run. And we're also going to talk about some contract extension, some ones that got signed this week, some ones that have not been signed yet and may still be to come. And particularly, we're going to take a look at the length of those contract extensions because I think there's some very interesting stuff happening right now

where you've got a guy like Cole Caulfield signing on for the max length. While meanwhile, over in L.A., you've got the Skaverkov deal where the player says, no, no, I don't want term. I want to go short, two years, maximum. a lot of different approaches with the cap getting ready to go up, we're told. So I think that's an interesting conversation to happen. We're going to poke at that a little bit. But we will start with the Stanley Cup final and we'll bring in Shana because I think the question that every Panthers fan has right now is, are we screwed?

And if not, just how worried should we be right now? I think that's a good question to ask. are we screwed as basic and simple as we need it, right? And it's, are they no, but might they be possibly? Can we go super vague, right? I guess it's a good thing that Florida won. I mean, hasn't, I'm sorry, it's a good thing that Florida hasn't lost on home ice yet, right? Because then, you know, everyone's going to be talking about momentum swings, rightfully so. It's the old cliche. You're never really in trouble until you lose on home ice. Right. So.

Which makes sense. For some. Unless you don't have home ice in the series and you've only got three home games because you do need to win on the road at some point. But yes, this is the old hockey cliche would say not panic time yet. And like if we look at recent years and have total recency bias, like we know last year's Carolina Hurricanes, they couldn't do it without winning on the road. And we know the Panthers generally can win on the road except for this series apparently. and we also know that home ice isn't as important as it once was this year. So that's another advantage that I guess works in Vegas's favor too.

Like it's not like a given that Florida suddenly is going to come back because they're on home ice, but they get to control the matchups and that's a good thing. Yeah. And, you know, we should also, of course, point out that the Panthers obviously were down not to nothing to the Boston Bruins, but they were down three to one after losing a pair of games on home ice in that series, and we all know how that turned out. But it does feel like since that point, since really game five of the Boston series, there hasn't been a lot of adversity for this Florida team.

They lost one game in that entire stretch, and that was a game when they were already up three-nothing against Toronto, so really not something that would concern you. now they've lost two games and not only have they lost them, but this isn't, for example, the hurricane series against Florida, where it was, hey, yeah, it was two nothing after the first two games of that series, but they were two real close games. Went into overtime. Vegas, Dallas, same thing. This didn't feel like, hey, we just flipped a coin twice and it came up heads and, you know, what can you do? Vegas was a better team in both of these games.

So all of that leads to one of my favorite running features this postseason, which is your concernometer, where you will occasionally check in on teams and say, okay, just how concerned should they be? You had a new one for the Panthers down two nothing. And I got to say, you're rating out of 10 not maybe as high as some people would expect. It's like I have to walk this line where I'm not too dramatic and reactionary because then everyone will freak out and then I'm dramatic enough and I'm like taking this year like it's seriously enough. And here I feel like if Florida lost two on home ice now it's we're shifting back to Vegas and we know they're not going to control the matchup game and against this specific team it'll be a problem because that means Mark Stone's line is one. William Carlson's another. Then you have the two defensemen in Patronchalon Theodore like Vegas can play the matchup game better than most.

I would be more concerned. And if it was a 3-0 series, I would also be more concerned, too, obviously. This is why we moved it up. Like, the last two rounds, we've had to move it up because 3-0, it's like, okay, cool, nine out of ten, you're facing elimination. That's boring. But here it is, you have an opportunity to flip the series. And there's reasons why it is as high and isn't as high as it could be.

Like, you know, game one below the surface was a tight game until it wasn't. It was the last, you know, five minutes where Vegas just shut it down for Florida. and they, you know, really capitalized on their chances. They were converting. They were getting to the quality areas of the ice, and they were stopping Florida from doing so. But up to that point, it was a close game. Game two is where you really slant it because Vegas, one, was by far the better team.

Two, figured out how to be Popovsky that no one else could do before. And now you have reason to be concerned. But the fact that Ratko Glutis is going to play the next game, like there's reasons to have an ounce, one ounce of hope for Florida. Yeah. And so your ranking was you gave them a seven out of ten. And I'm with you. I mean, you can't go too far, especially because Lord knows, if you say, yeah, they should be panicking and then they win tonight, you're spending the next two days digging out from all the Twitter replies of like, oh, this aged well and all of this stuff and Panthers fans saying you never believed in them. I will say that the thing that worries me a lot for Florida, I mean, it's two things, right? Even if you were playing great, you're still down two nothing.

So you have to win four out of five against a good team. That is a steep hill to climb under any circumstances. Even if everything else had gone great in the first two games, and which it hasn't. And it's the thing that worries me. And people who listened to the show last week heard me talk to Jesse about this, where I said the Sergei Bavrovsky story is great, but he's had 10 days off and is a goalie on a hot streak going to stay on that hot streak when there's a 10-day gap?

I mean, how can you stay hot when you haven't played real hockey in all that time? And we sort of went back and forth a little bit, and Jesse talked me down to some extent. But so far, I mean, is it that simple? or have you seen something that Vegas is doing differently to get Pucks past Sergey Babrovsky? Is this just a case where a guy was on a great heater for four weeks and he's just not there anymore? I think both things are true. I think with any goalie, a hot streak you expect to come to an end, right?

Like, that's just logic. His numbers right now, I think playoff-wide the goal saved you have expected are second all-time for a single playoff run since 2007-2008 when we're. started getting, you know, a shot location data to allow us to have expected goals publicly. So, you know, that's pretty important there. Like, this is a huge run that he's on. And even with, you know, slipping a little bit the last two games, he's still that high. The only goalie ahead of him is either to start in last year with his incredible playoff runs. So there's a lot to that.

Like if you, and this is the thing with goal saved or not expected, the more you play, the greater chance you have of that number going down if you reach the heights that Pabrovsky did. you might slip one game in a negative number is going to drag the entire number down. It's a counting stat that includes negative numbers. So there's a big chance of that happening with any goalie. And then you factor in the fact that it's Brodowski, someone that we know can get a little shakier, the more he plays. And usually it's when he doesn't get rest, we're going to have a problem.

He got rest. But now it's like, well, it's too much rest. It's such a like a slippery slope. And when you look at the rest he got between rounds two and three, it wasn't a problem, but it wasn't 10 days. So if we go back to when he first rejoined the playoffs, he didn't play for a while. He was sick, lion took over. They ran with him into the postseason.

And Brobsky was not very good for like three games. He was like slightly below. He had one legitimately bad game. It was his second worst game of the playoffs so far behind game two against Vegas. And he took a couple of minutes to get back on track. Could that be the case here? Could he just need to shake off the rest and he's going to be fine for game three or four? Sure.

But can Florida afford that? Not really if they're not going to be supporting him. But on the other hand, I do think the Vegas is doing something a little bit different. They're capitalizing on their chances at a higher clip than I think we could expect. But they're being really smart with their shots because they're creating traffic in front of him. The key to beating Sergei Birovsky is taking away his eyes. And you could look at the goals from game two and see how they did that. I think it was three out of four.

It might be four out of four. And I really need to go back and watch to have that number like nailed down. It's not like this is something, unfortunately, we can just look up and, you know, confirm. You have to watch the game nerd to know for sure. But you look at that, like March is so gold to open it up. Mark Stone took away Barowski's eyes. That's what Vegas did to be successful and it worked for them. And that's what they can keep doing the series if Florida is not going to defend as well in that net front area.

Put your coaching hat on here for a second. Alex line comes in in game two, which, you know, a little bit, Bobrowski not playing well, a little bit of a mercy pull, a little bit of trying to wake up the team, all of those things coaches do. would you, if you were Paul Maurice, would you have given any thought to starting line in game three? And how bad would Sergey Bobroski have to be tonight for you to consider making the switch heading into game four? I would say I would not start lying tonight, but I would have him, see, this is why I'm not coach or goalie coach because I don't have had to manage goaltenders at all. And I would be like, hey, be ready.

But I'd be like, don't tell Bob. I told you that you're ready because that his confidence going to be shaken. But like, be ready. Like, I could not handle that. Yeah. And I don't think I'd manage like the- The psychology of weird goalies would be, it feels like you'd need like a full-time babysitter on staff.

Literally. Yeah. That would not be me. I would be like, you play a fucking good game or your lease is short. Like, nobody wants to hear that. I'm banned from being a goalie coach. I can like say it right now. But if I were for whatever reason, for whatever insane reason,

someone decided to hire me, I would say no to starting line tonight because I don't think you give up on Brovsky yet, given what he's done for them so far in the playoffs. He had two bad games. He had the game one, he was just average. Game two, he was legitimately bad. So he had one bad game, right? Do you change course? No, but I think the good thing is getting lying in the game kind of refreshes him because now he's had a long layoff.

And you just kind of make it known like, we're going to do whatever we have to be prepped on his end to come in. because if Bobrovsky slips it off, I think you're kind of, you don't give him that much room to, to, you know, fail tonight. You, if he allows two bad goals in the first period, you know you need to make the switch. And then you consider,

depending on how lying plays, starting him in game four at this point. It's not like I'm going to say Bobrofsky needs the rest. Normally, this is a long playoff run, right? Where, let's say, 20 games deep, we'd be saying, well, just give Bobovsky the rest. He doesn't need it.

He got 10 days. It's not about that. It's about keeping line sharp and just trying to do what's best for the team. team and we know Lion can be a very effective goalie and somehow save the Panther season. So let's see if he has that magic again, maybe. But I think it's all about how he starts. Does Borowski look confident?

Does he look shaky? Is there anything you can do to manage him and manage a team in front of him that you don't need to get to that point? But I think you have to go with him and then adapt from there. I would agree. I would go Brodowski game three. And the Panthers are, by the way, we should we should say unless they're pulling a fast on his. Paul Maurice was interesting. He didn't completely shut anything down after game two.

He sort of said, you know, hey, we're going to take a look at things. But then immediately the day after he said Sergei Babrovsky's the starter and sort of poured cold water on any talk of that. So as we're recording this, we haven't had the, you know, the game day skate where we can say who was in the starters net and all of that stuff. But everybody is assuming it is, Sergei Barovsky tonight. And I feel like that's the right call. Like if I'm if I'm a Florida Panthers player, um, if I see a goalie switch now, that feels a bit like a panic move to me. And that feels a bit like, well, wait a second. Like I, you know, we're down to nothing, but I still felt like we're okay, but maybe we're not if we're, if the guy who got us here

is already getting pulled. Um, now that haven't been said. If, if I'm down three nothing, I probably do change goalies. I, you know, if it's, if it's a one nothing law. and Bobrovsky's fantastic, then no, you don't do it. But I've often said that when you're down 3-0, it is so tough to come back, I would, if I'm a coach, I change something just so that if my team gets that first win, I want them to be able to look and say, okay, you know what, we're still down in the series, but we're up 1-0 since we switch goalies. And, you know, it gives you maybe a little bit more reasonable leave,

a little bit more reason to think something's different. The part that you highlighted is, I think, the real tough one, which is how short is the leash tonight for Sergey and Brovsky? And my old podcasting partner from way back in the day used to say that I think the term he used was you sort of had to treat goaltending sometimes like they do pitching in the World Series where, you know, if you're a baseball fan, hey, during the season, yeah, you send the pitcher you're out there to pitch six or seven innings and then you wear. If it's a deciding game in a playoff series, that starter might only get two

innings. You yank him as soon as there's any sign of trouble and you throw the next guy in there. And then as soon as there's any trouble, you throw the next guy. Now, obviously, a baseball bullpen is very different where you got seven or eight guys available. But yeah, I mean, we used to have the discussion that, you know what? If he looked shaky on the first goal, get him out of there and get the other guy. there, which you never see. I don't know that I've ever seen a goal to get pulled based on one goal. It's like based on vibes alone. Like, we have to, but I mean, we see it sometimes, right?

Where you turn on a game and it might be even 10 minutes in. Maybe he hasn't given up any goals, but he's fighting every rebound and he's looking behind him and stuff. And you're just like, oh, this guy's not on tonight. It'll be interesting to see. I mean, it's a tough call because this is, you know, first of all, it's your $10 million guy. And, and he's, and he, and he's, He's also the guy who has looked like a $10 million guy for the last month. And so at the same time. But you have to have it in your head. Like, I feel like maybe if Paul Murray's had a little more like loyalty,

which he doesn't need to have, but I don't know if he has it in his head. Like, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. He wasn't our $10 million guy all year. And if you look at it and you go, we know he doesn't have the perfect playoff record. Like I don't know how much that keeps creeping into your head. Like maybe he can't handle the pressure situation because. Since he came in, obviously, Austin, he had the pressure situation, but it didn't have to be perfect.

The rest of the team kind of pulled their weight. But Toronto, when was the pressure on them? It wasn't. It wasn't at all. When against the Keynes, it never was either. So now it's like, here's a true pressure situation you're in. If the team around him isn't pulling their weight, is he the guy that's going to be the difference? I don't think at this point you're going to count them to be.

Like, you know there's a risk that that won't happen. It's just so tricky, but you're right on it. We don't see it enough where it's like, all right. You had a bad goal to make a change. But if they don't do that, we're going to be having the opposite conversation. Why did you wait so long? It's like with Boston now, with Olmark and Swamen, you knew you had a capable guy. Why did you wait until the last minute to make a goalie change?

So then Swamen's the one losing the series when you could have put them in sooner. Like I think that's why getting lying in a game was important. And maybe it gives them a little more confidence, but it's not like you was perfect either. So it's like it's a tough call, but you have to like balance that. When's the right time to make the change? And then when are you not, when are you waiting too long? And then you're going to be regretting that. And it's a great point by you to mention Boston, right?

Because that's a case where they're getting ripped for not making a change on a guy who's going to win the Vezina this year. You know, the runaway Vesna winner. And people are saying, why didn't you yank him out? So, you know, certainly you can do the same with Brovsky. And you also mention the word loyalty. And that is one that kind of comes in. You sort of sit there and go, wow, you got to have loyalty to the veteran. who got you here, it's a Stanley Cuff final, and there's, there's no room for loyalty.

It's, uh, it's so that's going to be really interesting to see tonight. Now, you know, probably now that we've had this discussion, Sergey Borowski goes out and stands on his head tonight and, uh, gets them right back in the game. And if he does, it's fired him then. It's fine. Exactly. We know he's a big listener and, uh, you know, we, we, we know that, uh, he, he takes a lot of this stuff to heart. Um, it on the goaltending side. And because this is, as we sort of shift the view to Vegas. And we should mention, no Jesse Granger today. They're skating as we would be recording this, so he's not available.

So we don't have Jesse here to defend the Golden Knights. So we're going to take it into a territory that maybe is going to raise a few eyebrows. But maybe before we fully get into that, the other goalie in this series, Aidan Hill, has now sort of yanked that crown away. from Sergei Birovsky of being the story of the playoffs, at least in net, he looks fantastic, which I think in a sense is maybe good news for the Panthers only in that if you can get to him tonight. This is a guy who doesn't have any kind of track record if you can get to him tonight.

And it's two to one after tonight's game and, you know, now you've put a few goals past him. I think that really resets the series a little bit. of course if he's if he's fantastic again tonight and he beats you the series is pretty much over but I do feel like you know if you're the panthers you're sitting there going just got to get a couple of you know maybe even a couple ugly ones past this kid and then maybe the confidence starts to waver you know our fans are going to be loud our fans are going to be throwing dead rats at him and all of this stuff can we get in this guy's head do you feel like maybe that's a possibility or is this kid just so locked in that nothing's going to phase him?

He seems so locked. I mean, if you make the crazy saves he's been making, definitely seems locked in. But I think that every goalie, like I'm sure has their weakness and they can figure it out. Like the Panthers are creating chances. They're just not finishing them, which is a story they've heard before. That was literally the theme of their regular season and was part of the reason why they almost didn't make the playoffs in the first place. So the finishing talent is there to beat him.

I don't know if they're going to figure out a consistent pattern to make him super beatable. Like, that's a tough one to predict. But I do think that if, especially if players like, I don't know, Matthew could chuck can stay in the game a little bit more and actually be like on the ice instead of the locker room. Although I don't, I think some of the calls were a little bit soft on him last game. But like, if you have that. The misconducts were, they were made up. I mean, I know a lot of people are knocking him that he's got to be more disciplined.

And he does. But like the misconduct he got after the Ikel hit, that was pure game. management. That's just a ref going, get out of here because I don't want this to break into it. And I know there were a lot of Panthers fans who were really ticked about that because they score a goal early in the third. It's four to one. And they're kind of sitting there going, oh, our best player is out of the game for 10 minutes because of game management. And we could maybe have a comeback here. So I don't, I'm not going to defend back. You could Chuck. And then he and then he gets a misconduct for hitting a rat. Like, come on. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's, I, I have said this before,

misconduct should not count in penalty minutes totals. They are fake. They are not real penalties. Get them out of the, you know, whenever you see. That's a hot take. That is a hot take. It is. You know, and it goes back to me for, I'm still, and this is my grumpy old man mode here,

but I'm still mad that the Flyer Senators game from 20 years ago holds the record for penalty minutes after I grew up in like the 80s and seeing all these crazy brawls. And those tickle fights from that game hold the all time record because the, the official basically gave everybody, like the guys were getting triple misconducts, which isn't even a thing. I mean, it was just absolute. Like if you're not getting the game, you're just getting three, 10 minutes. I'm just giving everybody, yeah. And I've pointed this out before.

Jason Spetz of fought Patrick Sharp. Fought. I mean, you can hopefully hear the air quotes in my voice. They just tackled each other. Jason Spets had got, I want to say, 35 minutes in penalties for that fight. He got a major and three misconducts. That's more penalty minutes than we're handing. it out in the entire Red Wings

avalanche brawl, the famous one with Patrick Waugh and Brandon Shanan and all those guys. McCarty, Lemieux, he got, Jason Spetsa got more for basically falling down while holding on to Patrick Sharp. That bothers me a lot.

I don't know how I got us this off the topic of the Stanley Cup final, but I somehow took it back to it. It all works together. It's fine. It's fine. Listen, we're just. Misconducts don't count. That's where I met. And I'm defending Matthew Kachuk, even though I don't really want to because I'm still a bitterly fan.

And I'm not quite over what happened a few weeks ago. Okay. You know what? I'm like, why do you hate Kachuk? I was thinking about that for a second. I'm like, I feel like there's a reason and I should know it. And that is a very obvious reason. See, I love Matthew Pichuk.

He's like my favorite, one of my favorite players to watch going into this year because he has all this skill in the world and all the end. asshole vibes in the world and put that together to have someone who just, it's, it's everything about him. So he carries himself on the ice, like the vibes of that. That's why I love that he was the pupil magazine, like, face of the NFL. Everyone's freaking out. Like, he's not the face of the league. Like, he is one of them and this is a good thing. Like, here in America, we don't market hockey. We don't, no one cares about Connor McDavid and Edmonton who has the personality of I can't even think of a comparable right now, actually, to be honest. I was going to say, like Sidney Crosby's as vanilla as it gets.

Connor McDavid is even what's blander than that. Like, these are not people that are selling the game. You have Cachuk, who gives you a little bit of everything. And now we're whining that hockey has attention. So I'm on the Matthew Cuckech train. I'm sorry. And we got referees throwing them out of the game for 10 minutes at a time. Because they just know.

They know. They're like, you know what? Like you're a jerk. Get out of it. That's what I want to hear. We need a mic'd up one. You're a jerk. Get out.

Yeah. It's as clean as it gets. I'm sure you did. something, but I had my back turn for five seconds. You must have done something. You're thinking about doing it. So let's get back to the Golden Knights here, because I've teased it a few times. There is a piece by our buddy Dom up on the athletic Thursday morning in which he uses what I have described in the past as the only four-letter word that you're not allowed to say at a hockey rink.

Luck. He describes what is happening with the Vegas Golden Knights right now, as, and this is his word, unprecedented in terms of luck. And he looks at a couple of different stats that can sort of give us a handle on how lucky a team has been and finds that Vegas is not the luckiest team in this series, not the luckiest team in this year's playoffs, the luckiest team ever in the playoffs that we have ever seen, at least going back to the years that we have these numbers. Can you, as somebody who's very fluent in the stats world, explain to me what these numbers are and why do they tell us that Vegas is lucky as opposed to that Vegas is making their own luck and finding away in all the other cliches that people will want to throw at this? I mean, technically they are making their own luck, right?

If you're converting on a high rate of your chances, which should not be sustainable, you created your own luck because you have the finishing ability. you're finding the little gaps to exploit. But yeah, like, so PDO is a number that some people love, some hate, and it's basically just save percentage. And we know Vegas has a good save percentage, but their shooting percentage is incredibly hot. And some of that, I think, too, it's the style they play. We'll see it in games. We saw it against Dallas a lot, where Vegas would start running away with the game, and then

they're not shooting after that. So there's a low number of shots, you know, in that game, and they converted it on a very high rate of them and then if you're barely shooting the puck after because you don't need to, you're head for nothing. Like, this is a situation you're in. It's just how they play. Generally speaking, though, you don't consistently convert on your shots at such a high rate and something that you expect to regress at some point to be, you know, you either have

to put up more shots and scoring chances or you're just the goal's going to dry up. Like, that's usually how it works. It's a potential, you know, at most of seven-game series. so that might not be the case here. Like there might not be enough time to regress, but it's something their whole playoff run. Other teams generally don't do that. They generally don't have this level of luck.

No one in the analytics error since 2008 playoffs has a shooting percentage as high. No one has a PTO this high. So for that reason, Vegas is super lucky. Sometimes, and we can go back specifically with Vegas, so their first year in the NHL, They were a super, super, super, super lucky team. Below the surface did not support the results.

But over time, the results started to improve and then it kind of balanced itself out. That's why they sustained themselves. It's a little ironic that they're in this situation again. It's just like they're hitting a jackpot at the right time. It's not to say they're not here for a good reason. They're a very good team, but they have gotten super lucky along the way. Yeah. And it's, PEO is always a fascinating one for me because half of it is the,

goal tending. And, you know, people will look at that and they'll, you know, sometimes if you, if you point to a team, you know, like the Rangers, for example, and go, well, they've got, their PDO is high. And you go, yeah, because the same percentage is high because they've got the best goalie in the world. And goaltending is part of hockey. And, and, you know, that's, is, is Aden Hill lucky or is Aden Hill playing great? And, you know, how do you, how do you, you know, how do you decide what that is? And a lot of people get very upset. If you suggest that any goalie has been lucky in any sense or had any degree of luck,

because they'll say, no, the goalie's job is to make the saves. This guy is making saves. I do think it's interesting that it's Vegas in this case that's putting up like the 940 save percentage with Aden Hill. Because this is not, you know, this is not Shisterkin playing great. This is not Vasilevsky playing great. This is not somebody with a really well-established track record. In fact, this is a guy that the Knights themselves had down the depth chart heading into the season, certainly, and even into the playoffs. He wasn't their starter in the playoffs.

And he's been fantastic since then. Now, again, is it a hot streak? Is it a guy playing great? Is it luck? You know, that stuff, you know, it sort of becomes a weird thing. I know that if you're a Vegas fan, you're going, hey, there's no luck about it. This guy's locked in. He's playing great.

If you're a fan of some other team, you're probably sitting there going, come on, man. Aidan Hill, of all people, goes on a heater and looks like Terry Sawchuck for a month and a half. There's some luck involved in that. The number that I find more useful than the PTO one that Dom looks like on the offensive side is expected goals above expected. Now, am I right that this is, you know, again, you can look at it. team say they have a high shooting percentage and that, but some people say, well, wait a second, they're creating great chances. They're getting in, you know, they're taking high danger chances. Their shooting percentage should be higher. But this number is looking at, okay, based on

where they're shooting from, based on their opportunities, this is how many goals we would expect to go in. This is how many goals actually are going in. If that second number is higher significantly, that would suggest that they're, you know, whether you call it luck, getting the brakes, the shooters are hot, whatever it is, and Vegas is quite a bit higher than we would expect. Do I have that roughly right? Yeah, there are, the goal differential above expected is seven, if I just counted correctly. According to Dom's notes since 2008. So there are a couple teams that are higher.

Not all of them had as long of playoff runs. But it's, yeah, you're finishing above expectations, which here's the thing too. Like, so expected goals, they look at everything up to finishing talent for the most part. Even some private models don't do finishing talent. And you can just kind of take it as like the average shooter would score X. But if someone has the finishing talent of, say, Jack Eichl or Jonathan March, so you can expect that they're going to score more, right? Like David Poshnerock is someone that consistently scores above.

expectations for the most part you expect that he's one of the best finishers in the league but uh you sometimes that number is something too it depends on what you're doing below the surface are do you have the quality chances behind it that you're outscoring them so much and then on the flip side you have goal saved to have expected which is what is the goaltender doing and he'll have been very good he's saving more than expected it's sustainable to a point but to have that combination it it's really really really impressive so it's showing that they're doing things right You know, they're especially goals for has been very good this postseason. They expected goals against, though, defense, like defensively, they haven't been as good as I think we expect, especially on the penalty kill.

So that's where we're like seeing that difference. Can Aden Hill keep this up? That's going to be a huge thing here. That can really tilt the number itself. And can the finishers keep this up? Can they keep converting on those chances and then not need to shoot the puck as much? So it's something that you have to ask. Like, will it just run out at a certain point?

Will it slowly trend down? is there enough time for that to even happen? You know, across the full season, we would expect that to change across a playoff run. Someone can get on a hot run like this and it's fine. Yeah, and that's exactly the point. That whenever you're talking about any kind of luck-based analytics, very often that's what we're using them for.

Because, you know, it, it, we already know what's happened in the past. We're trying to figure out what is more likely to happen in the future. And if you're halfway into a season and we see it most years, right? There's some team that's overachieving. Nobody thought they'd be in the playoff hunt and they're right there. And then you look at some of these numbers and you go, wait a second. All of the luck-based numbers are flashing on the dashboard right now. And that tells us that there's a good chance that this won't continue, this level of success won't continue for that team. And if you've been around long enough in the analytics world, you know, we've had some big wars around December over certain teams saying, you know, And it's always the same, right? There's always one side. And it's usually the fans of that team, which is fine. And they're saying, no, no, you don't watch this team.

They're so gritty. They're so, you know, they have so much heart. And it's all of this psychological stuff gets applied as the reason. And then inevitably, the numbers guys turn out to be right. And the team falls off a cliff in the second half and they miss the playoffs. And then it turns. But then it turns. smug about it. That's the thing.

See, everything would be fine. We're all so smug if we're right. If not, no one would care, it'd be like, oh, all right, they got better. Oh, okay, they got worse. Okay, this kind of fell in line. All right. And instead of, I was like, but I was right about it. And then I read.

Yeah. But look, I mean, the thing I always say is, you know, when you're halfway through the season and you say this team has had a lot of luck, you're not trying to take anything away from what they've accomplished. You know, as I often say, like, if we want numbers to tell us what's already happen. We already have those stats. You know, you want to know, you want to look at stats to tell you what team's playing. What, look at what teams winning games? Look at the standings. That's all you need. You don't need analytics. You don't need anything fancy. This team has this many points. That's all

you need to know. But you're trying to figure out what's going to happen down the line. Now, that makes a lot of sense 40 games into a season. We're potentially two games away from the end of the playoffs here. If you're Vegas right now, and I'm sure if you're a Vegas fan, and you're mad. And I've gone into the comments of Dom's piece, and I see all the people talking about heart and grits and watch the game and, you know, all of this stuff that we hear all the time when this comes up. You know, if you're sitting here going, hey, I don't care about this stuff,

here's the good news. You don't have to care. If you're 40 games into a season and people are telling you your team's been lucky, you should probably care because you should be prepared for what's almost inevitably going to happen. There's two games left potentially in this series. it doesn't have to regress. They could stay lucky or even their luck could stop right now and they're still up to nothing in the Stanley Cup final.

They just got to win two games out of the next five and that's it. So, you know, the thing I would tell you if you're mad about what Dom wrote today and I would encourage people to read the piece because it's very interesting. We encourage people to go yell at him too because. Yes, I would encourage you and yes, definitely and yell at him before you read the piece because he really likes that. He really likes when. and then you have enough.

Yeah, just the headline gives you the vibe or like a tweet that somebody else wrote, especially if they like made up a quote that isn't in the article. Like just go based on that. If somebody in Reddit tells you to be mad, just go. Just yell. But I will tell you this, the one word that does not appear anywhere in this article about luck and all this and randomness and all this other stuff that I didn't see anywhere was the word deserve.

Nobody's talking about do the Golden Knights deserve this. The Golden Knights don't deserve to be up to nothing. They don't deserve to be in the final. No, nobody's saying that. We're just trying to figure out how did they get here. And I guess my last point is I do find it, and this is maybe me being like the Leaf Fan and the Eastern guy and whatever. But I feel like we've been having the luck conversation about the Panthers for three rounds now, right?

Talking about, oh, they're an eight seed. they made the playoffs in the final week because Pittsburgh lost to Chicago and they come in and then their goalie gets hot and their shooters get hot and here they are in the Stanley Cup final. This team, it's all luck. So as Matt as Golden Knight fans probably are about this,

I got to feel like Panther fans are sort of like, hey, welcome to our world. And, you know, it's nice that somebody else is hearing it. Look, at the end of the day, you will never see an article anywhere that says this team that's about to win the Stanley Cup has had really terrible luck in the playoffs. Like it just doesn't, hey, if you have bad luck in the playoffs, you lose and you're out.

So this is, you know, survivorship bias in a very real sense. Every team that makes the final, every team that wins the cup is going to have a good PDO. It's going to have, you know, good numbers because at the end of the day, you do need some luck to win the Stanley Cup. And so far, Vegas, on top of all the other things that they're doing right, has had a big bucket full of that luck. That's a good way to put it. Like, you're never going to win the Stanley Cup without luck.

It's just not going to happen. That luck could be a goal going on a good run. That luck could be the puck bouncing in your favor. Like, that's what happens in this game. Like, it's played on an ice surface that can get little divvits in it and, you know, the puck slides. I know it's like this wild concept of puck slides. on ice, but it does, and this can happen.

But, you know, with the Panthers, there was definitely luck getting into the playoffs. And there was definitely some luck that their chances, they started converting on something. They tried all year and it didn't work. And they finally started, you know, scoring on things that they should have all year. Like, their shooting luck changed. But, like, that was a good team. They did the right things below the surface. They had a good forecheck that was helping them.

And they had the right line deployment. And they had strong goaltending. Some of it was a little lucky. They also had good goaltending too, like period. That's, I hate like when people forget that it's a little bit of everything. You're going to need an ounce of luck. Saying Vegas is super lucky isn't saying they're bad. They've been really good at counterattacking.

That's not luck. They're really good at getting possession of the puck. They have a ton of players who are really good with takeaways. And they're good at, you know, rushing down the ice and making a goalie pay for it. That that's a good strategy. Is it a purchase strategy? No. And it's why it's not their only one.

But it's so tough because, you know, fans will be like, But we deserve. No one deserves shit. You don't deserve the Stanley Cup. Like, you have to earn it. That's how it works. You have to earn it. And earning it does require an ounce of luck,

but it's not, nothing's deserved, nothing's given in this league. You know, sure, penalties might not go your way one game, but it's just like the way sometimes like, well, we deserve this.

Nobody deserves it. You have to work for it. And there's four rounds of the playoffs. If you've gotten to this point, you've done something right. You didn't just luck your way into it. You did something right, but you might have had luck on your side.

And you have to a little bit. And luck happens and part of it is, hey, that puck that bounces over a defenseman stick and lands on your stick in front of the net. Okay, what are you going to do with it now? Are you going to convert on that chance? And then we all remember the lucky break or are you not going to convert and we all forget about it? So it's, it is interesting. And look, if you're one of those people who doesn't believe, hey, luck has nothing to do with this, teams make their own luck. there are a lot of people who believe that the best team in the league wins the Stanley Cup

every single year because by definition the team that wins the Stanley Cup is the best and therefore every... It depends how you define best there. And I got to say, I can never, I can't get my head to that place, but I wish I could because it sounds like it'd be a lot more fun. And I'll use that as sort of an awkward segue into our last topic, which is we've got two teams in the final, which means we've got 30 other teams that are already in offseason mode. We saw a big trade this week.

And again, this is why, even though I think luck has a huge factor, I don't really love the discussion because we're heading into this offseason. Everyone's going to argue over every little move. Who should get traded? Who should get signed? If it's all luck, who even cares? What does it matter who gets drafted where it's just going to come down to a bunch of bounces? So it's fun to pretend that the best team was always going to win. and now we're trying to figure out who the best teams are.

And one of the ways that you build a best team in the NHL is by acquiring good players and then locking those players up, getting them signed at a number that fits under your cap. We all know Hard Cap League now. Those numbers matter a ton. And I'm really fascinated by what we're seeing play out in different markets and with different players around the league. because we all know the situation the last few years of COVID, basically causing a flat cap. Cap has barely moved in three years now.

We'll not move very much next season, we're told. But then after that, that's when everybody expects it to finally start going up. So what do you do if you're a player and you need a new contract this year is now the time to lock in for the long term when there's this flat cap and everybody is so squeezed? or do you go, no, you know, I want to maybe do something a little bit shorter and know that there's going to be more money available in a couple of years. And we saw this week two headline grabbing extensions that took very different views of that. You had Cole Caulfield signing in Montreal. You had Gavrokov in Columbus where he gets a two-year deal.

Cole Coffield gets the eight-year deal. I find this really interesting because in one sense you would expect it to be flipped, right? Cole Cofield's the young guy. He's just entering his prime. And he was injured last year. So, you know, you would think if anyone was going to bet on himself, it'd be him versus Vladislav Gavakov is the, he's 27. He's not old, but.

Ain't you? Not exactly a guy entering his prime. You would think maybe he'd be the guy wanting the eight-year buy it. And yet it goes to the other. other way. And Pierre Lebrun wrote about this, both of these signings, and he basically made it sound like in the case of Gavrikov that that was the player in his camp saying no more than two years. We are going to bet on ourselves. Two years, that's it. I'm going to get more in a couple of years when we're 29. And that in Cole Confield's case, it was the team saying

eight years or nothing. Now, you know, eight years or nothing. thing can be negotiated, but that that pressure came from Montreal and then ultimately Cole Coughfield decided to go for it. And I know, look, you offer you or I $60 million, we'll sign. And nobody's shedding any tears for Cole Cawfield here saying, you know, this poor guy is going to be eating ramen noodles for years. But does it feel like he left a bunch of money on the table, potentially? Does it feel like it's interesting that Vladis Abrakov in two years could cash in big on this or maybe could be looking back as we've seen some other defensemen especially that going, oh, I maybe overplayed my hand. How do you approach this if you're a good

NHL player knowing the cap has got one more year and then in theory starts rocketing up? Yeah, if I'm a player, I want to bet on myself if I'm in Caulfield's position and only if I'm in Caulfield's position. Like I would want that two or three year deal, kind of what we saw Braden point go with to maximize his money because if I remember right, his came up around 2020. He had to sign that bridge deal and then he had his next extension coming in. And like, it was clear there wasn't enough cap growth for that big extension at the time. So if I'm Caulfield, that's what I want. I get the appeal of cost certainty, especially if you're someone that's dealt with injury before. Like he just did. I do understand that. And a smaller guy too. Like it's.

Yeah. And also you can look at it and think like, what if he plateaus again? Like he's had, he's faced that before. And if you're a young player too, you just might want the certainty. Yeah, I want to be a part of this team. I want to be a part of the future as they're rebuilding. I can help provide that. And I get that thinking. That's a very team mentality and hockey. That's what we're supposed to have on every other sport. Everyone is out for themselves, which they should be to a point. So it's a tough one. And then for Gavrokov, it's the opposite. Like, he's betting on himself to make more money in two years. But if I'm him, if I'm the Kings, I love that. I think that's fantastic because he's someone you don't want to saddle yourself with this huge contract for because we know defensemen,

typically aging curves tell you that their peak is kind of where he is now. He's at the, I don't want to say at the end of it, but he's not going into his prime years. You don't want it that, you know, age 30 and forward is when you see that decline start. And sometimes it can be a little bit more rapid depending to on how they play stylistically. For me, Gavrikov's the kind of player who isn't going to age well because of the style he plays. There's a lot of wear and tear that I think is going to make him super slow, trailing plays when he's in his mid-30s that I wouldn't want to be paying for. And I think at 29, you're going to have a hard time the way the league is trending if

teams keep getting smarter and trying to think this way that is because you never know. Like we've seen free agents. Big yes. Get handed those huge contracts. But it does feel like the league's getting away from that a bit. So that might create a problem for him. Who's going to want that six-year deal for the 29-year-old who plays that style? Who knows how he's going to look in two years either?

So it's a really tricky one. I respect betting on himself, but you know, you would think the situations would be reversed. This works out really well for both teams. This is not player friendly at any way. It feels like the way it's currently structured, unless the roles were reversed, this feels so team friendly because if I'm the Canadians, I want the cost certainty for Caulfield. I want him sign now before he gets any better, before the team around him gets better,

which is going to elevate his plan in turn too, before he can show he can be a consistent 30, 40, goal score. He hasn't yet. You know, so you get him to this money, which is maybe a little bit more than what he's worth right now,

but it's still a very good range that could look cost effective through his prime versus, you know, Gavricoff, you're getting away with two years. That's great. That's wonderful for the Kings.

They didn't lock themselves up to a defenseman. And then when the young players keep trying to take over these bigger roles, they're the ones that can push for the money. Yeah, Gavikov is, I mean, we talk about bet on yourself. And look,

this is a guy that a lot of us weren't very familiar with coming in, of the year. Had his name surface up as a, as the big prize of the deadline. A lot of us were kind of confused by that. And then he goes and gets traded to L.A. And a lot of us go, okay, now we're going to, here we go. It's David Savard all over again.

This is going to be the overrated guy. And he actually played really well in L.A. Like he fit in well. Looked quite good for that team. Proved a lot of us, maybe not completely wrong, but showed that he had more to his game than we thought, but man, you talk about betting on yourself. The name that jumps to mind for me is John Klingberg, right? Bet on himself in a couple of ways, first of all, by not signing an extension with Dallas, with a year left in his deal, says, you know, you know what? No, I don't like the number

you're offering me. I'm going to play out my contract. I'm going to hit free agency. Doesn't get the big deal in free agency as far as the years gets a big number for a one-year deal. kind of bets on himself again of, hey, I'll go back to market next year, didn't really work out. We don't know what will happen to him this summer. Maybe ultimately it does work, but that's, to me, a case where... This is it going to work this summer. I'm sorry.

Yeah, exactly. And, you know, another one like Chris Russell a few years ago was like supposed to be the big guy heading into free agency. Didn't turn out well. So we'll see. But I'd say, sorry, these are opposite situations, though, in so many ways. in so many ways. And it's kind of like,

if you're a defenseman, which path do you take, the Klingberg or the Gabbercoff one? If you're Gavikoff, you're on a bad team. And he was good. When Columbus was good, he was good.

And even when they were bad, he was good until last year when everybody was broken, he was in a role way above his depth that just exposed every weakness he has. You go to a good team

and that's when you can bet on yourself. You walk into a team with a much more sustainable system, with a role that's more cut out for your skill set, and you see how he, you know, he's able to thrive there.

That's when you bet on yourself. Klingberg went from that area of being in Dallas on that good team, in that good system that could hide his weaknesses and allow him to thrive. And then he bet on himself by trying to be the star of an absolutely terrible team, right? Like, what were you thinking? I could be the star power play quarterback behind Zegris. But like you're going to one of the worst defensive teams when that is your weakness. You're not going to thrive.

No one's going to want you at the deadline. And now you completely killed any hopes of a big contract for yourself. Like, if you're going to go this route, you have to do it Gavikov's way and be the guy that goes from bad team to good team thrives and proves. See, it was just a product of my surroundings. I can bet on myself versus Klingberg who took such a strange risk for himself. Yeah. The other piece of this that Pierre mentions is with Cole Cawfield, especially the fact that it's an American on a Canadian team, get them locked up for eight years. You know, great news for Montreal because they now control him.

And when you see, you know, we've seen the Matthew Kachuk situation play out where he was happy in Calgary right up until he wasn't. You've seen Jack Eichael, obviously in Buffalo, not a Canadian team and a different situation with the injury. But some of these younger players starting to figure out that, hey, I can have a little more control and push my way out. And this gives Montreal some protection there, a situation that is playing out that is not in Montreal yet, but could. and is maybe a little bit similar is Pierre-Luc Dubois in Winnipeg, which is a team that has famously sometimes had some trouble attracting and or keeping star players. Where do you see this heading? Because they've got him under team control for one more year.

But apparently we're told that based on Pierre's reporting, that he and his camp have gone to Winnipeg and said, look, let's figure out a way to get a trade done this summer. rather than go another year because he could walk as a free agent next year if it comes to that. How do you see this one playing out for Winnipeg? If you're the Jets at this point, like his trade value is not going to go up. He's coming off a really good year. So that does work in their favor.

Like he was legitimately good this year. But like how how do you keep a player who clearly doesn't want to be there? It doesn't want that one year contract. You could force the situation in arbitration, sure, but like it just doesn't, it doesn't make any, any sense. Like, just move forward, try to get him. I mean, obviously, not perfectly where he wants. You know, it's not like he controlled his feature. He doesn't have the trade clauses.

So you have that working in your favorite. But he kind of does in the same way that Matthew Kuch did last year, right? Because Matthew Kachuk didn't have any trade power. But what he did have was he could say, go ahead and trade me to Columbus. I'm not signing an extension there. So they'll get me for one year. That's a good point. Yeah.

Like, it's just, the whole situation's messy. And I feel like last year maybe it was a little bit different. Like, everybody kind of knew he wanted to go, but it was like, let's see what they could do this year. But now everything's changed for them, right? After this playoff loss, it feels like they know they need to make significant changes. And he's one of them. They need to change not just the on-ice product, but everything in the locker room. You can't have players who don't want to be there.

You can't have players who have zero accountability for themselves. but it's tough because here's a player who is just making a bad name for himself in so many ways. Like there's nothing wrong with wanting to control where you play, right? Like that's where you live. I know like everyone got so upset like, oh, how could Johnny Goddra choose this? Like, you got to live there for years. This is not just where you're playing. It's everything.

I get that. But it just feels like it's like, will DeBah ever be happy? And that's, I think the biggest problem. Like if they feel like, okay, we don't know what to do with him. Like this is a bad situation. Like it's just like get it. Your hands are tied. we have to do and move forward and let him be someone else's problem.

And of course, we all assume that he wants to go to Montreal and now it becomes like this fun game of chicken, right? Because if he wants to go to Montreal and Winnipeg knows that, then in theory they don't have much bargaining power. Montreal come in with a lower offer and who knows, how do you negotiate that trade? That'll be interesting to see. Okay, let's head to the mailbag. And as a reminder, you can always reach us with a question or comment. comment at the athletic hockey show at

gmail.com or you can leave us a voicemail at 845-4-4-5-8-4-9. Let's Tom has an interesting question to take us back to the Stanley Cup final. If Vegas wins the series, what's the best story in terms of consmite? Marches-O having a big postseason in series versus his former team,

Eichael returning from the injury, Aiden Hill doing what he's doing, or somebody else. This is a a conversation that I had on my on my other show on Puck Soup yesterday because there's nothing in the cons smith voting

that says anything about having a good story but this is voted on by the media we know media folks love a good story so it certainly helps if you've got that does anything stand out to you here as far as if Vegas wins the series I think we all agree that the consmite is kind of a tough call at this point

do you think any of these are going to stand out as far as, you know, if you're a media person sitting in that press box going, oh, I, I love a good storyline. And that's why I'm going to vote for this guy. Yeah, it's a tough one because, and it's two players who play together is going to be the storyline. It's Eichol coming back from injury and doing all this. Like, that's, that's a good story. But I feel like March 2 is going to get more credit because we love goal scoring. That's what's going to give us like the pop. You know, everyone loves a good goal.

So I feel like that's what's going to give them that. It's going to be the goal scoring versus the assist more so than, you know, the storyline. Maybe I'm wrong. I could be wrong. Yeah, no. It's, it's, it's, I think that, like right now, I think Marsha's so is the favorite because he's, and not only is he, is he playing great. He's had the great first couple of games.

And the consmite is for all the playoffs, not the final. But again, yeah, recency bias is going to kick in. And, you know, he's, he's just looks so good. But I do think there's a lot of. room left for for somebody else to step up. The other question we'll do this week and this is one from, I mean, I got to do this one just because I love the handle. It's from Wendell Clark Kent. And he says, hey, crew, I feel like it hasn't been talked about enough that both teams in the final have made huge trades to get where they are. In such a copycat league, what are the chances

this encourages more teams to swing for the fences? And, you know, I have written about this a couple of ways that you've got Florida with Matthew Kachuk, Vegas with Jack Eichol, but even beyond that, and you look down Florida's roster, a lot of guys that are key pieces that they've acquired by trade, and then Vegas, we know their situation. They're in on everybody. It's, we always like to say it's a copycat league, but it's also, we're told, a draft and develop league. You just got draft players, give them eight years as soon as you can, and then you just cross your fingers and hope he got the right guys. Are you at all optimistic?

Maybe optimistic isn't the right word, but do you think there's a chance that this lights fire under some GMs in this league to stop making excuses about how hard it is because there's a salary cap and to make some big swings? And does that help potentially some teams like maybe a Winnipeg or somebody

who might have a star player to dangle and say, hey guys, go big or go home. That's what we just learned from the final. Isn't it said that we have to teach general managers to make big trades? Isn't it say we have to say, hey, if someone like Matthew Cucke is around one of the best players in the league, you take the big swing and try to win a trade by acquiring the best player? We were so shocked that Florida made a fair offer for the guy, right? I mean, like, you know, we're like, oh, they actually traded good players to get a great player instead of, you know, just trying to try to get them for a handful of nickels on the dollar. And it, I mean, people who read my stuff know it drives me crazy because NHL GMs, oh, it's so hard.

We just can't this super complicated salary cap that we have that isn't complicated at all. Meanwhile, in the NBA, there's like 14 trades happening constant. Superstars are moving around, just all sorts of crazy. I've said it before. NBA GMs just seem to be smarter than their NHL cousins. They're creative, right? They're more willing to be creative. So is there, is the lesson for anybody going to be, let's get creative and make some big trades?

Or is the lesson just going to be patience, stay the course, all of that nonsense? Tamabay, the lesson was patience. Even though everyone took away from it, built a really good third line, which was a lesson, is patience with your core and supplement your team with really good secondary players, which their third line was. Like, everyone takes their own lesson from it sometimes. You know, with Washington, I think people saw patience. has the answer too. If a team like Winnipeg were to win, it would be patience with your core.

But here, it's a different conversation. You have, like, Vegas doesn't show patience with anything. You can't take that lesson from them. You know, it can't be Florida.

You're looking at it going, oh, you need a good goal. Like, there's more to it. I think taking a big swing is, it should be the takeaway.

To a point, do you want to do it to the degree Vegas has where you have no loyalty to players and you give away every ounce of draft capital you have. No, but the lesson I think is if you're a contending team, the picks right now aren't going to help you.

That we can learn from the Bruins. We can learn from Tampa. We can learn from other teams too. You know, that pick is not going to help you in your window. It's after the window. So that's something to take away. But go for the big players. If you can get a Mark Stone, which Vegas did at a way lower price than they should have.

You go for it. If a top player on the league is available, go for it because, first of all, elite players don't grand trees. If you don't draft them and develop them, two key steps to it, because we've seen high draft picks not reach their potential because of the development aspect. You can't just assume they're going to be perfect. That's a problem right there for you. You need to find a way to bring an elite talent if you can't draft and develop it. They don't hit the free agent market very often. It's really rare that they do. So you have to make big swings for them. I'm with you. And to me, this seems pretty straightforward. And I'm if Vegas,

wins, the nice thing is it will at least for a while kill that whole idea that we always hear from the tanking teams that you can't win the cup without a very high pick in your lineup because they've got, I mean, obviously they've got guys like Eichol, but they trade it for those guys. Vegas has never, in the history of the franchise, had a top five pick in the draft, period. So, you know, that, they're going to prove it can be done. But I think we all know that the real lesson that GMs are going to take is they're going to point at the Panthers and say they didn't do anything at the trade deadline. So that's why I can't do anything at the trade deadline.

And that'll probably be great. Yeah, I can't wait. Let's wrap this up with a look at this week in hockey history. I'm hesitant to go into this because the last time that you co-hosted with me, we went back to, I want to say, 1988. And you were like, oh, I wasn't even going to be born for like 25 years after that. And it was really depressing, something like that. So I'm going to go back.

Not that far here. But this week in hockey history, it's just a long list of teams winning Stanley Cups. And I'm going to go to two from right around the, God, I was going to say the turn of the century. That's an old-timey sounding phrase. So I think you were actually alive for these, although you probably weren't like fully online yet as a hockey fan. Let's see. Let's see. What have we got?

What year? But the first one is, okay, so June 8, 2001, it's actually interesting. the way this is written in our list, it just says Ray Bork plays the final game in his NHL career. True, but it does feel like that leaves out an important detail, which of course is he wins the Stanley Cup finally with the Colorado Avalanche. You get that famous moment of Joe Sackick, not even lifting the cup himself, just turning and handing it directly to Ray Bork, a famous call on TV and all of that.

What I think a lot of people would look at and say, greatest Stanley Cup handoff ever, one of the great Stanley Cup moments ever. Now, old people like me watched that live and, you know, and we watched the Ray Bork saga unfold and the trade and everything. How does that resonate with you as a younger fan? Like, do you look at that as like, is that just like another old-timey highlight or do you kind of- No, I watched it. I was, okay.

Okay, so 2001, I was in second grade. I just finished. Yeah, I was at the end of second grade. So, but I did watch hockey back then. Like, I grew up watching it. So, yeah, I did see that. Those were the games, like, and I was allowed to, like, stay up and watch them, too. So that was always fun.

Like, I was, yeah, I definitely. I was also allowed to stay up and watch because I had nobody to tell me I couldn't because I was already old at that point. That's all right, all right, a little second grader. At least I saw it, though. That's true. Yep. The other one that I want to do, okay, so we'll go back a year now. This maybe, I don't know if the first grader was allowed to stay up and watch this one.

Maybe, probably not actually, because you would have had to really stay up for this. I think it was more begrudging this one. Okay. You know, this was, I didn't want to watch this. June 10, 2000, New Jersey Devils defeat the Dallas Stars 2 to 1 in double overtime to win the series. And I guess my question on this one is, is this goal? remembered enough. This is the Jason Arnott double overtime Stanley Cup winning goal. And again, I remember when I was growing up a million years ago, the idea of scoring a Stanley

Cup winning overtime goal was a really big deal. And yet it, you know, and you can tell me if I'm wrong here, but it doesn't feel like this goal is remembered as like a huge moment in NHL history. Like I think probably a lot of people, certainly if you're not a Dallas or New Jersey fan, can you picture this goal in your head? Do you, you know, can you instantly summon it or is it one of those things where you're like, oh yeah, I do. I guess Jason Arnod did score a Stanley Cup winning goal in double overtime.

How much does this goal resonate? 23 years later? I don't think it does nearly as much. And like, I mean, there's a few reasons. Like, I think it's possible. Like, oh, the market. Sure. things like that. The fact that it's not like it was the devil's first cup in so many years,

maybe that would have a little bit more, like, keep behind it that it would be like circulated more. And you also have the difference. Like for us here, at least, there's been numerous rights holders since. And I know like getting highlights from one rights holder to another had been a problem at points too. So that could be another factor in it. But I think that maybe it's because we've seen other overtime goals to win the Stanley Cup since. Like everyone's going to think of the Patrick King goal. And that was one, hey, the Blackhawks have not won in a million. years, there's a little bit of a difference and the bigger market size and, you know, recency bias too.

But it feels like this one isn't as played out in in commercials. Like, you see the Stanley. It was a nice goal too. Like it was a, you know, thrown in front kind of the, it was the old like NHL 94 one-timer move right in front. But yeah, like when I was growing up, the, there was the, it hadn't happened all that often in the TV era. It happened a bunch of times in the 40s and 50s.

But then in the TV era, the first one really was Bobby Orr, and that's the famous one. Arguably, some people would say the most famous moment in NHL history, the goal where he flies through the air to score the goal. He didn't, but that's how we all remember it. And then in 1980, when Bobby Nystrom scores to win the first Stanley Cup for the Islanders, I remember that. Like, I remember seeing that a ton growing up, that highlight. I'll throw one more theory as to why I don't think this was as big a deal, is that this was the third time in five years that a Stanley Cup final had ended in overtime. It had happened in 96. Well, that's forward of it.

Yeah, exactly. Uve Group in 96, triple overtime, the worst goal to ever win a Stanley Cup. Just terrible. What an awful series that was, start to finish, Colorado beating Florida. It's just a defensive defenseman just flings a puck from the point. And that's, this was the ultimate dead puck game. One nothing triple overtime on a seeing eye lucky goal from the point. Just, just terrible.

And then the year before, obviously had been the Brett Hull goal, which we all remember for very different reasons. So, you know, maybe by this point, it was just sort of like, oh, this is a good. There's no controversy or anything like this. We just move on. But I don't know. I am a little bit surprised that we don't talk. about this goal more than we do but I guess that's that's just how it works and maybe

we'll get maybe we'll get an OT winner do you feel like Alec Martinez does that goal hold up years later like yeah yeah okay so you're talking about a goal here that this is before I ever wrote about hockey and this is I was just purely a ranger fan for that series um so that goal was like burned into my brain and then NBC here used it in their commercials promoting the Stanley cup for years. Every time there was a highlight about the Stanley Cup, you know, like the Kiss the Cup commercials or look at the moment of them winning the Stanley Cup,

they used that clip. So that was one for me with my bias. I saw a lot and remembered a lot, but just it was played a lot because it would be one that would be played and like, you know, I'd be sitting there watching with someone who was Ranger fan they'd be like groaning for years after that goal.

So that one, you know, and that's a team winning it twice in two years. So it's not like, oh my God, this legendary moment. it definitely was one that was played a lot. And I think it was because it was an NBC one and they were just using their own clips for a while. I was there in the building that night and I have,

the thing that sticks with me is I have never seen a goaltender just as devastated as Henrik Lundkis was. He stays down on the ice. And then the part that, you know, I think a lot of people have seen, like you've seen the photos of him face down on the ice.

You've seen the part that a lot of people didn't see because I don't even know if it was on camera. like when he finally started to get up and like his teammates started to come over to him, he waive them away. He was like, no, I can't right now. Like I just like, he needed that time on his own and it was, it was not pleasant. So maybe by the time we talk to you guys next week, we will have another one, a moment like that or maybe we'll be right back in the middle of a series that's picking up again.

I think the way the schedule goes, there's what, one game a week for the next month and a half, I think, to finish this. But I will say, thank you very much, Shana, for joining us, for filling in for Ian, who I think is back next week, although we'll have to double check on that. Thank you for listening to The Athletic Hockey Show. Again, you can always email us your questions at The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.mell at 845-4459. And right now, you can get a one-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month for 12 months. When you visit Theathletic.com slash hockey show.