The Athletic Hockey Show - Jonathan Toews' murky Blackhawks future with Mark Lazerus, Stanley Cup odds after free agency, Hockey Canada Parliament hearings

Episode Date: July 28, 2022

Ian and Sean kick off the show with a visit from Mark Lazerus to discuss his exclusive interview with Jonathan Toews on his future with the Chicago Blackhawks. Then in "Granger Things", Jesse Granger looks at the teams that increased, or worsened their Stanley Cup odds in free agency. Next, Ian and Sean share thoughts about this week's Parliament hearings for Hockey Canada, and to wrap up, concession food talk reigns supreme in the mailbag, "This Week in Hockey History", and thoughts on the LA Kings giving Dustin Brown a statue.Have a question or comment for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail] or leave a VM [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back, everybody. It is your Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. As always, it's Ian Medes-Shawn McAdoe with you for the next hour or so. Jesse Granger's going to drop by from little Granger things. We'll take a look at what teams have improved over the summertime with some of the moves they've made. We'll talk about the latest in the Hockey Canada situation as that continues to evolve after a couple of days of parliamentary hearings. We've got a lot to get to. Some this week in hockey history.

Some great mailbag questions. But I'll tell you what, Sean, we're going to kick off this show with Mark. Lazarus because there is, Sean, is there anything better than getting a gift in late July from a hockey writer? You know, it's the dead time in the, in the hockey world. We're thirsty for stories, right? That's right. Yeah, absolutely. And this is, uh, apparently, I assume Mark would be off at the cottage or something, but, uh, we haven't hit the, we haven't quite hit August yet. So he was, uh, kind enough to gift the hockey world, uh, with a pretty decent scoop here. Yeah, exactly.

And that scoop being an exclusive conversation with Chicago captain Jonathan Taves in which Taves kind of expresses some uncertainty about his future. We'll leave it at that and we'll bring him in because he can explain this a lot better to our audience. Yeah, listen, Mark Lazarus, thank you for the gift of late July podcast fodder. I love that all Canadians think that Americans have cottages too. Like we don't have a universal cottage system like you do up there. I just figured since you were a big wig that like you would get an invite to one of the... You know it. Yeah.

Like getting the invite to the cottage is like being a comedian and like on the Tonight Show in the 70s and 80s. Pull over the couch. Johnny would wave you over. You knew you had made it. And that's, so I just assumed you were there. No, I just figured you guys would talk about the Kachuk trade for the rest of the summer. Oh, yeah. That was another gift.

We were getting too many. Yeah, we're getting too many gifts. Hey, by the way, Laz, do, in Canada, there's a part of the country that calls them cottages. And there's part of the country that calls them cabins. Ooh. Do we have that same? Same divide in the United States. I know rich people in America have lakehouses.

I think that would be the equivalent. But most of us do not have second homes in America. It's a, it's, uh, we have to pay for college and health care and everything else. So it's problematic. Yeah. Yeah. Most of the cottages I've been to would not be lake houses. Let's just say, I don't want to get your hopes up too high on what these are looking like.

Yeah. Yeah. On the park. I feel like lake houses have like plumbing and stuff like that. Amazing. Hey, listen, we have you on because, as we said, you had a great conversation with Jonathan Taves. And this is probably more of like the kind of me just loving, you know, how these stories came together. So just walk us through. I mean, was this one of those things where you've kind of connected with Taves? You're like, hey, whatever you're ready to speak, I'm available, did he reach out to you?

Like, how did this one all kind of kind of come together? No, that's exactly how it is. You know, I reached out to him. I said, look, you know, right after the De Brinket trade and the dock trade. And I said, hey, you know, obviously everyone's wondering about your future. So whenever you're ready to talk, let's talk. And he was ready to talk. And then I got COVID. So we had to delay it for a little bit.

And then so it happened on, on, what was it, Tuesday of this week. We finally got together, sat down and, and disgusting. He's always been open about this stuff. I mean, you know, after they, after they let Cory Crawford walk in 2020, you know, he kind of opened up to me about that. And then, you know, it's happened a couple times over the years now where, you know, he expresses some frustration with the way things are going. And he has earned that right as the captain of the Blackhawks for the last 150 years.

And he, you know, he's, he's, he doesn't like to sit there and stew. He likes to talk about it. And, you know, there's some people that are mad at him for all, he's always, you know, he's throwing the team under the bus or complaining or whining. And that's not what it is. He just, you know, he's the voice of the team. He has been for his entire adult life. And so people want to hear what he has to say.

And he's, you know, not going to beat around the bush. He's not exactly thrilled about the idea of, you know, five years into what feels like a rebuild starting a new rebuild. He's not thrilled about it. And who can blame him? Now, let me ask this question, too. Do you guys have a regular meeting spot? And I ask this because, you know, sometimes I will meet like Daniel Alpherson, for example.

And there's a specific coffee shop in Ottawa that he's like, hey, let's meet here. And every time we sit down, people are always like, oh, my God, there's Daniel Alpherson. And hey, Ian, and they kind of eavesdrop and they sort of pay attention. You can tell that people are paying attention. Like, is that what happens with you and Taves? You have a set spot? We don't have that. We're not that tight, I wouldn't say.

We have a very trusting working relationship where he trusts me and I trust him. And, you know, when there's something to be said, you know, usually I'm the guy who says it, he says it to. And, you know, sometimes it's over the phone. Sometimes it's at the rink. Sometimes it's, you know, wherever we are on the road. But no, we're not like hanging out and throwing down beers every night or anything like that. And I'm glad I don't have anyone that I have a regular meeting spot with. Because if I was ever in that situation, 100%, I would start saying stuff just to screw with

the people eavesdropping. I would absolutely. Yeah. Just be like, so I mean, so the comeback, Daniel, like is the opening night you're going to and just watch somebody like run out of the room and start tweeting. I would get, I would get in trouble because I would start talking about how he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame and then everybody would bum rush. Mark, I got to ask you, can you please and certainly anyone who hasn't read the piece yet,

absolutely do. There's a ton of stuff in there, a ton of quotes. The one that is getting a lot of attention is the one where he says, and this is Jonathan Taves, is quoted by you at the end of the day. We're talking five year plus process, according to Kyle Davidson, the general manager. So that part of it doesn't sound appealing to me at all. And I got to say, when I was reading the piece, my thought was that this sounds like a guy who is frustrated, but is trying to approach a tough situation rationally.

And then as the day went on, I started seeing tweets from other news sources. And I was like, oh, wow, this guy sounds pissed off. He's really mad. Define news source, John. Yeah. And I honestly had a, and this is, this is me being dumb. But I actually had a moment where I was like, oh, did Jonathan Taves like do the media rounds and talk to other people? And maybe he got like, as the day went on.

And no, he didn't. He talked to you. And this is all these other news sources that are what we. politely in this industry called aggregating. What I might say is stealing your content and then spinning it up. And by the end of the day, I think there was this impression that Jonathan

Dave's really worked up and beside himself. So having been there and sitting there and look at him in the eye as he was saying this stuff, how ticked off is he right now? Yeah, no, like we could have a whole long journalism discussion about, you know, the

conflation of aggregators and actual journalists and the media illiteracy of people who can't tell the difference between reporting and aggregating, and that's a whole separate issue that drives, I think most of us nuts. No, I saw all that too. I was getting Google news alerts saying like Jonathan Taves's fuming about black hawk. No, it wasn't that at all. He was in a great mood. He was very upbeat. He was, you know, he feels great. I mean, you have to remember, this was a guy who, you know, a year and a half ago couldn't get out of his own bed for most days because he was dealing with, you know, what we believe to be long COVID essentially after 15

years of mounting health issues. And, you know, he was thrilled. He's he feels like he's in great shape. He thinks he's going to have a great year. He thinks he has a lot of hockey left in him. He's really excited to play for Luke Richardson, who he met and talked with and asked a round about and everybody said was just like the awesomest guy. This is a guy who's very excited to play for the Blackhawks this year. But that said, he sees what we all see that the Blackhawks are tanking this year. They are going to be absolute dog shit this year. There's no way around that. And they don't want to be better than that. They're trying to be bad as a management process. That's part of the process here. And, you know, I even said to

Tays. I'm like, he's like, he's, you know, I said, you're, you and Kane are proof of why that works. And he kind of acknowledges, I understand it. I get it. But at 34 years old, not having really been in a true playoff atmosphere since 2017, you know, the bubble aside in Edmondson, this is a guy who wants to, he doesn't want to just kind of go out like this. He wants another crack at it. And, you know, that's his right. He's earned that right. And frankly, the Blackhawks, he would rather, from the sense I get is the Blackhawks don't want him more than he doesn't want to be a Blackhawk. Like, I could see a situation where he could stay and become like a pillar of the rebuild. He's really good with young players. He always has been. But I don't think the Blackhawks want him.

So I don't think it's even his decision at this point. So he sees the reality. He sees what's going on. And he was just acknowledging it. He's 34 years old. Of course he doesn't want to be part of a five-year rebuild process. And if that's how long it takes. It could take longer. Look what Detroit's going through. They're like in year seven right now. And they're just starting to turn the corner. So of course he doesn't. That doesn't appeal to him. Does that mean he wants out? He's kicking and screaming to get out? No, it doesn't. Look, I use that same quote when I tweeted out the story because it was the most direct he was during that whole interview. It's a good quote and it's dead on and it's how he feels. But the problem with any anytime you're, you know, I've been in print journalism now for

over 20 years and you can lose tone. You know, you don't, it's just like, you know, sometimes you send a text message and you think you're being funny and someone interprets it as, you know, being dead serious. That happens. If you're not hearing a person speak, you might not understand how he's framing it. And Taves is not pissed. He is not whining. He is not complaining. He's bummed. He's bummed seeing all of his,

all these good players go out the door for a very little return. And he's bummed that, you know, he knows that the Blackhawks are probably not going to compete for a Stanley Cup for the rest of his career. That's disappointing. It's only human to feel disappointed by that. And that's all he was expressing. You know, what I think it's interesting, too,

when you look at Taves's, uh, cap hit, yes, it's 10, 10 and a half million dollars. But Mark, um,

the base salary is only 2.9, right? Like this season, four million was paid out in his signing bonus. And look, he's got full control of where he goes. He's got a no movement of closet. It's not like they can do what they did with the brinket, which is just turn around and trade him anywhere. If you were trying to get inside of Jonathan Taves's head,

is there a market that you could see a fit for him and wherever he would land that, yeah, you know what? For one year, I could absolutely see Jonathan Taves in this spot. And that's just, you know, he acknowledged himself. He's like, if I'm not playing well, I have no trade value. I mean, he's fully aware of that. But if he does, like the second half of the year, he got his legs back underneath him,

he was playing pretty good. He was starting to look like Jonathan Taves again. And if he's in the kind of shape he is that he thinks he's in and he plays well this year, who wouldn't want to add Jonathan Taves is your third line center for a playoff on? Are you kidding me? With the Blackhawks eating half his salary? Like you said, it's very low actual money and a caput of 525 for the rest of the

like that. And, you know, Taves acknowledges like, you know, I'm not looking to leave, but, you know, if there's a good fit out, there, a good opportunity. I might try that just for fun. That's where he's at in his career. And I can imagine a number of teams. He just wants to go somewhere where he can compete again, right, where he can win again. You know, Jonathan Tate's always been all about winning, right? That's the whole thing. And I don't think there's certain cities that he's opposed to or in favor of.

Chicago's his home. Chicago's going to be his home, regardless of where he goes at the end of this year. And I don't think he'd be opposed to the idea of going to a contender, any contender, really. he's not a married guy. He doesn't have kids. He can go out and just, you know, if he wants to be a mercenary for the rest of his hockey life, he can do that. He wants to win.

He wants one more shot at winning. And if the Blackhawks give him that opportunity and someone other team is willing to take him on, I think he would be okay with that. I think he'd be fine moving at the trade deadline. He didn't say yes or no to that. But that's the sense I get is he's kind of up for an adventure at this point. So from a Chicago perspective,

and if I'm a Blackhawks fan, you know, I don't want this guy to go, but I'm also sitting there going, okay, it's a trade. Trades are always a little bit of fun to speculate and think about. Are we talking a deadline move at this point? Is there any scenario where he moves before the season starts? I doubt it. I mean, just again, because of the cap hit and because of just the uncertainty of what

player he is right now, you know, he's not a $10.5 million player, certainly. It's debatable whether he's a $5.25 million player because a Blackhawks certainly can eat the money. I mean, they're not trying, they're doing anything to get to the cap floor at this point. So I don't see it happening before the season. I think he needs to prove that he can still play, which I do think he will do. I think he, again, I think he'd be a phenomenal third line center on a contending team, rings in the room and all that. But I don't see it happening until the deadline. It's just, and honestly, the blackhawks are not going to get a haul for Jonathan Taves. You know, Patrick Kane is the one that can get you first round picks and high end prospects,

because Patrick Kane is still one of the, you know, 10 or 15 best players in the world and will be for a few more years to come because his game just ages better than Taves does because he doesn't play that heavy, heavy style that Taves plays. So, you know, if they move Taves, it's not going to be some kind of big piece of the rebuild. It's going to be almost as a favor to Jonathan Taves as just, you know, here you know, here. We're going to let you go chase a cup here rather than just finish out the season with us. So Taves is not going to be a big trading piece. Kane is the one who would be. Because that, because that was my next question was, you know, if I'm Blockhock's fan, as you said, they really seem to want to move this guy. And I'm thinking, well, you know, why is that?

If we're only going to, if we're not going to get a haul for him, uh, they're trying to be bad, John, they're trying not to win. And Jonathan is the best center on the roster right now. And that's why I'm asking about, you know, would they trade him now? Because, you know, you're saying, like, you know, he needs to have a good first half to bump that trade value. And yeah, absolutely. You'd love to see him come out and, you know, we're all writing stories about the old Jonathan Dave's back. And wouldn't that be an amazing story? And then the trade value goes, up and all of this stuff, except it's very clear what the plan is in Chicago. And, you know, if the old Jonathan Tave shows up, that maybe can they afford to wait until

the trade deadline, two-thirds of the way into the season, if he's out there winning games for them, which definitely doesn't seem to be part of the plan. So I'm very curious as to how they balance that in a season where, you know, they're trying to be bad. And yet if Jonathan Taves and to some extent Patrick Kane are bad, then that can tank your trade value. It is. It's a fine line to walk. Like the Blackhawks signed, you know, Andreas Athanasiu and Max Domi, who once were very productive players in the NHL because they're hoping to flip them at the deadline for picks, right?

But what if those guys are pretty good? I mean, the better they play, the more they're going to fetch you. But the better they play, the more they ruin your tank, right? So it's a fine line that Kyle Davidson's walking here. for Taves and for Cain, I think, and I haven't spoken with Cain, you know, since all this went down yet, so I can't speak for him. But I get the sense that they both kind of want, they don't want to leave right now. And they have full control. They have full no movement clauses.

They want to see how this looks. They want to see what it's like to play for Luke Richardson. They want to see what some of these young guys have. It might be fun. Two years ago in the COVID season, the season that Jonathan Taves missed, the Blackhawks went into rebuild mode, remember. And they were going to, you know, it was, they put like seven or eight rookies in the lineup. and they were building around to Brinket and Kane and those guys. And they were in the playoff front for most of that COVID season.

Like they were pretty good. And it was fun. They were a fun team to watch. A bunch of young guys going out there playing above their heads. And Kane was having a good time. That could happen this year. They might be bad, but it might be fun. They might like Luke Richardson enough that, you know,

hey, maybe I want to be a piece of this sticking around. And maybe I'm willing to take a short-term, cheap contract next year, to continue to be a pillar of this rebuild. That's entirely possible. It's not likely, but it's possible. And I think both players want to find that out. They don't want to leave. They love Chicago.

Patrick Kane wants to go down as the greatest Black Hawk of all time. He probably already is, but he's got a long way to go to catch Stan McKee at his numbers. Jonathan Taves, he, being the captain of the Chicago Blackhawks is like his whole identity. He loves that and he doesn't want to give that up. Neither of these guys wants to leave. They just don't want to be stuck in a miserable situation. So if they start the season and they're like, you know what, I like the vibe around here. Yeah, we're not good, but we're doing something here.

We're doing something fun and we're building towards something. Maybe they do want to be a part of that. And then it's up to Kyle Davidson if he wants them to be a around. beyond this season. That's possible. And I just think that Kane and Taves are in wait and C mode. They just don't want to make a decision right now. They see the reality, they understand the situation, but they want

to give it a chance. They want to be Chicago Blackhawks, and they're going to try it. But I think both of them are kind of seeing the writing on the wall, and don't expect that to be the case. You know, Laz, in our minds for hockey fans outside of Chicago, Jonathan Taves and Patrick Kane are forever linked, right? You think of one, you always think of the other.

Could you give us a sense of how close they are are they tight buddies? And the reason why we're bringing this up, is there any scenario as they both headed the free agency after the season next summer, that they pull up Paul Korea, Taye Mussolani,

we're going to go somewhere and we're going to go play for less money because we love playing with each other and we just want to, yeah, yeah, we want to go try and win a cup again together. Like, do you see any scenario

where Taves and Kain are together in a different city next season? I don't think that's a priority for them. I mean, look, they go back forever. They were rookies together. They were roommates. They were line mates in the early years. Like, they are friends, but they're not like BFFs.

Like Alex DeBrinke was Patrick Kane's best friend on the team. And, you know, Jonathan Tavis sends to hang out with the older guys. Like, not that there's many of those left. But they are tight. They are close. They talk a lot. But they haven't even, I asked Taves about that. I'm like, have you spoken to Kane about this?

And he says, we've been meaning to bump into each other as how he phrased it. So, like, they don't have regular coffee dates either, just like me and Taves don't. but they are forever linked and they know they're forever linked and there's a ton of respect between the two of them. They like each other, they're friends, they are not inseparable. They are not attached at the hip. They're attached at the hip in our minds and they always will be. I mean, hell, they're on the cover of my book arm in arm. You know, they are the Blackhawks of the, they are the Golden Age of the Blackhawks or the two of them. But I don't think they need to be together. It's possible if someone's got the right cap space and the right needs. I'm sure they

would love that. That would be fun for them, but I don't think that's at all a priority for them. Is it possible that some of this desire to move Jonathan Dave's is just a case of trying to remove the last doubts from Patrick Kane being, you know, that he's the prize as far as if you're doing the rebuild. He's the guy you've got to convince to move. And if he sees Jonathan Dave walk out the door, maybe that's the final piece that says, you know what? It's time to go for me too. I mean, God, if losing to Brinket and Strom, his two linemates wasn't enough. I mean, they've been, they've been flashing the neon sign to Patrick Kane that we want to trade you for a better part of a year now. I don't think that's the primary motive of all this stuff. I really do

think that Kyle Davidson just feels they need to tear it down to the studs, get as many assets as possible and build it back up, you know, for a new generation. But I do feel like a lot of these, like, there's no reason you couldn't have brought Dylan Strome back on like a one or two year deal, right? just to be your number one center in the meantime during the transition. Someone's got to be, you know, number one center. But I do think that they were trying, you know, as a secondary or tertiary goal here was to show Patrick Kane, look, just wave the no movement clause. Let us trade you.

Let us get more picks because I do think that's what Kyle Davidson wants. Kane's in such a different situation than Taylor's because Kane is still really good. And he can fetch you a lot. And you have to decide whether you want him to be a part of the rebuild. Because honestly, for five years, Patrick Kane's still going to be pretty good at 38, 39 years old. His game will age beautifully. But I don't think the Blackhawks see it that way, and they just, they want to get something for him. They don't want to lose him for nothing the way, you know, we see so many big free agents. I mean, you can't just let Patrick Kane leave

for nothing, right? You have to get something for him. And I think that's part of this has been, you know, Patrick, accept the trade so we can get something for you. Final question for you here, Laz. And you've written about this, you've talked about this, that the legacy of those Chicago teams, it's a little complicated. It's not cut and dry, black or white. If Jonathan Taves and Patrick Cain somehow get traded either before the season starts, trade deadline, whatever, what's their legacy in Chicago? It's so complicated right now because everything that touches the 2010 Stanley Cup team now is tainted in some way. And, you know, I wrote about that last year that, you know, Jonathan Taves's legacy is just increasingly complicated. The one,

the one pure thing the Blackhawks had was Jonathan Taves, right? He was everything you want in a leader and a captain and a player. He was clutch. He was talented. He was talented. He was, he He was hardworking. He was everything you want. And now, but he was the captain of the 2010 team. And he, you know, said he didn't know about things until I think it was training camp the next season. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. I mean, you know, anyone who is in that room that decided to sweep Kyle Beach under the rug, to me should have no business ever being in hockey again.

Like, Joel Quentville should never coach again. Stan Bowman should never be a GM again. You know, I was surprised that Kevin Shevel day off. He's a grown man who was in that room and he did nothing. Like, everyone in that room to me is a pariah and should remain one. for the players, it's difficult. And if you read the Jenner and Block report, you know, the players didn't know much and the black aces don't hang out with the players.

And I know that, you know, a lot of players, Kyle Beach said that everyone knew. And if Kyle Beach said that, then I believe that. But, you know, to what extent did they know? When did they know? What should they have done as a player? Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. And it is a part of Taves's legacy now.

Like it or not, fair or not. And I think it is fair to include this in the discussion. He was the captain of a team that allowed this to happen. He was in a position of leadership on the ice in that locker room and this happened. That's part of his story now. And, you know, I think history tends to be kind to these people. And Jonathan Taves did a lot of good for this team and he was a phenomenal player and he was a model citizen for most of his career here. But that's going to be a part of his story.

And it's up to every individual fan. And it's something that Blackhawks fans have been grappling with for 15 months now is how do you, you know, incorporate that story and everything you know about it now into, some of the best times you've ever had as a sports fan. And it's up to each individual fan to decide that. Well said. Listen, Laz will leave it there. Again, terrific work. If you haven't read it, it is a phenomenal exclusive interview with Jonathan Taves that Laz has up at the athletic.

Listen, thanks for this. Hopefully you'll enjoy some downtime here the weeks to come, and we'd love to get you back on the pot at some point down the road. Thanks, guys. Anytime. Yeah, and get to work, aggregators. Do it. All right. That was a great conversation with Mark Lazarus.

Again, terrific job getting Jonathan Taze for that exclusive. And we're going to do something rare on the Thursday show here. Sean, we're going to go back to back with the guests. We're going to go from Mark Lazarus right over to our pal, Jesse Granger, who joins us every Thursday for a little segment we like to call Granger. Thanks. Brought to you by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with us at the Athletic. And I'll tell you what, though, Granger.

We got a little bit of a bone to pick with you. you had some significant personal news this last week, and yet you did not choose this show, this platform, to release that news. Instead, you went to social media to announce your engagement. So it's a little bit of a, yeah, congratulations, but we're a little sour. You're going to come on here and announce it to the world.

Yeah, yeah, I was trying to, I was debating between what was more romantic, proposing at the Bellagio Fountains or announcing it on the athletic hockey show. So I don't know. We'll see if I pick the right one or not. That's a tough one. But we got to say congratulations to somebody in the hockey world in Vegas,

finally getting a ring. Thank you, Sean. Yeah. So listen, hockey fans are going to want to know that you haven't said, you were just telling us before we got on, you haven't set a date, right? Right.

For the wedding. See, Vegas fans are going to be reading it. Like if you say, yeah, we've booked the wedding first week of June, second week of June, people would be like, hey, this guy has no faith in the. Golden Knights. Just realize that your date that you booked a wedding Golden Knights fans are going to read into that.

I'm just saying, FYI. I hadn't considered that, but you're probably right. It might have to be a late June early July just to get them off my back. Yeah. Just think about that. Free advice from us here. All right. So we're excited to have you on because

you have a piece that just dropped this morning at the Athletic, where you look at the teams that improved and I guess worsened their odds the most for the Stanley Cup this season vis-a-vis where they were at at the end of June when the Stanley Cup was awarded.

Now, full disclosure, Sean and I have not read the piece. We've both been kind of busy this morning, so I will read it, but now the beauty of this, though, is that we get to guess which teams have improved the most and which have kind of worsened the most. So listen, let's let Sean have first crack here. You can pick shot. Who's improved, who's worsened, you go.

Well, I mean, I'll do one of each because I feel like the obvious spot to start is with the biggest offseason news, which is Johnny Goddrault. So I'm assuming that the blue jackets have shot way up and the flames have taken a hit. I don't know how far up the blue jackets would go, but I'm guessing from close to the bottom to maybe not as close to the bottom. Great guesses. So Columbus is not in the top five in terms of most improved, but they did improve. They did improve. There were 11, sorry, there were nine teams that improved their odds and Columbus was one of them. Part of the reason is, I think it's just they weren't close enough to go, like you said,

they kind of went from not really having a chance to still not really having a chance, but you think they might kind of claw into the playoffs. I think if you were looking at odds to make the playoffs, I think Columbus, probably would have seen a much bigger jump. But to win the Stanley Cup, I think not many people believe in them, even with Johnny Goddrow. But you were spot on with Calgary. They hurt their odds the most of any team this offseason so far.

That's probably not surprising. They really took a dip. I mean, they went from, they were plus 1,800, which the way I did this, instead of just comparing the odds and subtracting, okay, they went from this to this, I actually did it by implied percentage, which without getting super, on a podcast where people can't see the actual numbers. If you're plus 1,800 to win the Stanley Cup, it's basically saying you have a 5.26% chance of winning the Cup.

So they went from a 5% chance of winning the Cup to now they've got a 4.3% chance of winning a cup. So they hurt themselves by almost a full percentage point, which may not sound like a lot, but that was the most of any team in the NHL this offseason. Calgary dropped a full percentage point in terms of how good of a chance they have of winning the cup. And basically, this is just based off of where people are putting their money. The odds were already set. The way they change those odds is, I mean, a huge move can change them,

but for the most part, it's where people are putting their money. So people are not believers in the flames after, even after the Cachuk and Goodro exits and the Huberto and Uyghur entrance. Okay. It's my turn to guess. And just because we had him on, in the last segment, Mark Lazarus, who covers Chicago. I feel like Chicago is top of mind for me, and he just spent a segment with us talking about they got rid of Kirby Doc and the Strom and the Brinket, and here goes Taves and here goes Kane likely.

Am I right in guessing Chicago's odds have worsened here? Yes. And it's actually kind of impressive because like I was just saying with Columbus, the higher your odds are, the more of a long shot the team is, the harder it is to move in terms of. of the percentage, right? Because it takes a lot more movement to move a smaller percentage. So just to quantify it, the Blackhawks were 100 to 1 to win the Stanley Cup on June 26th after the abs won the cup, 100 to 1. They were fourth worst in the league. Now they are 500 to 1. So they have

a massive, massive increase. Now, that only changes their percentage change. They only lost 7.79% They went from 1% chance to a 0.2% chance of winning the cup because it's so long. So they're only the fourth most in terms of like who lost

the most ground. But yes, they went from 1001 to 500 to 1. They are now tied with the coyotes for the worst odds in the entire NHL. Okay, so that, that, okay, I was right there. So then let me also be equally lazy.

We just had Mark Lazarus on and I went with that. Now let me go with the team I covered for a living, which would be odd. what. And I, this could end up being like Columbus where, uh, it seems like an obvious one. Because when Sean said Columbus, I was like, oh yeah, got to be Columbus. I'm going to guess Ottawa here, but you tell me if I'm wrong. No, you're right. They improve their odds the third most of any

team in the league this year. Florida was number one. Florida, if they're, if they're odds the most. And again, the closer you get to winning the cup, the less movement you've got to make, right? So, um, they were 10 to 1, the Florida Panthers were 10 to 1 to win it. back when the offseason started, they're now nine to one to win it. So they went up a full percentage point almost, 0.9.1 of a percentage point. I think that is the betting market loves to react to blockbuster deals. And even though the, the Panthers gave up a lot to get Matthew Kachuk, I think the fact that they were the winners of the Kachuk sweepstakes and equals immediate bets put on that team.

The Colorado Avalanche were number two, which I thought was surprising. They actually probably got worse this offseason, losing Darcy Kemp. and they also lost Obey Kubel and Burkowski, but I think it was a, I think what happened was people, betters were waiting to see if the teams around the avs stacked up to, to kind of match them and they didn't. So then everyone said,

okay, now that free agency is over and I don't think any of these teams have gotten significantly better, the abs are still the best team and they're putting money on them. But then right between, right behind those two powerhouses are the Ottawa senators. They went from eight, sorry, 80 to one to win on. June 26th to now they are 50 to 1 to win. So a pretty big jump up. Like Ian, you know well what they've done. I'm a big fan of the goalie swap. They got

cheaper in net by going to Cam Talbot. And to me, Cam Talbot's a better goalie. He's outproduced Matt Murray in each of the last three seasons and just about every stat you can measure goaltending by. So yeah, so you see Ottawa, they're still obviously pretty long shot to win it at 50 to 1. But that's a big jump up from 80 to 1. And they've also gone up in terms of of winning the Atlantic Division, they finished second to last last year. And they're kind of right in the middle of the pack of the division in terms of odds to win the Atlantic. That's pretty impressive.

All right. Can I make a couple more guesses? Yeah, for sure. Carolina must have gone. Going out and getting a couple of guys, big names for next to nothing. Did they go up? I was actually surprised to see no movement for. Carolina. And I don't know if that's just because people aren't like, obviously they get patch

ready and that was huge. But I don't know if people just aren't buying that or if, or if maybe the, just Carolina is not a big enough name to draw interest. I'm honestly not sure. Their, their odds did not change at all. They, they, they're at 7.69% chance of winning the cup and they are still there right at 7.69. All right. And then, okay, so you say Carolina maybe not a big enough market to draw interest. So that brings us to what is always the elephant in the room. And I will, I would say, I didn't read the piece, but I've got called it up on my screen and I see a big picture of the Toronto Maple Leaf. So I know they're on one of the lists. Yes. And I'm guessing it's not the good one because I'm guessing maybe the, well, I guess we'll find out their big move was in goal.

I went on the record about what I thought of that. Um, does the betting public agree with me or not? Did the Maple Leafs show up on the bottom five list? So it's funny that you mentioned that the Leafs are the featured photo on the story. And the reason we did that is because I think that was the only team that you couldn't, it would be a toss up, whether they're in the top five or the bottom. I think most of the teams, it would be pretty obvious if you saw the picture. That's why I like them. And surprisingly, they are in the top five most improved odds.

Yes, they are. Wow. Again, this is a case of a team being very important. very close, so not needing to move much to move the needle. But they were plus 850, so 8.5 to 1 to win the cup. And now they're plus 800. So 8 to 1. They moved up a half of a percentage point in terms of implied odds. 0.58, almost 0.6 of a point. So I don't necessarily, I mean, like, maybe Sean can give some explanation. I thought they would have gotten worse. That makes no sense at all to me. Unless the only thing I could think of is, you know, you,

look at what else is happening in the division. But we just said Florida went up. Tampa, I maybe would have dropped a little bit. Boston, I could see taking a big step back. But if Ottawa is moving up into that spot, I don't see how the path out of the Atlantic got any better for the Maple Leafs. I'm pretty stunned by that, to be honest. So Tampa Bay actually had the, they were tied with Calgary for the biggest drop in odds

of any team in the league. They, and again, it's not a massive drop. They went from 9 to 1 to 10 to 1 to win, which is a almost a full percentage point in terms of implied odds. So the lightning, they signed all those guys to long-term deals, right? Mikhail Sergachev, Anthony Sorrelli, Sernak. But then they lost McDonough. They lost Pallat. I think people are starting to see this, like the salary cap is slowly chipping away at this ridiculously stacked team.

And I think we're seeing, like last year we saw them take maybe a little bit of a step back. I think people are kind of losing their faith that this lightning team is going to continue the dynasty that they've been for the last three years. And then also Boston, Boston didn't make the top five, but they were just outside of it. They were the sixth, they were sixth in terms of dropping their odds the most. So both Boston and Tampa had bad off seasons. I think that kind of does at least partly explain why people are high on Toronto. Listen, Jesse, oh, sorry, do you have a question? I mean, just my observation was, and you see this a lot when you're doing analytics or anything like that.

The fact that if I'm not mistaken, I haven't heard you give a percentage over 1% yet. And all the attention that we put on the off season, we analyze every move and we speculate about everything and we make whole days out of free agency and everything. And then you get to the end and the people who have actual skin in the game as far as setting the odds, or it feels like are just making very slight nudges to the teams and not, you know, even even a team like Columbus that makes a massive move. You don't see that really reflected. And it either makes me think that maybe they're being a little too conservative and there's some room to make some smart plays here. Or maybe we're just all kind of living in fantasy land where we get a little too excited over maneuvering in a league where one or two players still can't move the needle all that much. Yeah, I think you're totally spot on with both.

I think we do overplay the importance of free agency. But I also think that hockey is such a tough sport to predict, and it's tough to predict how one guy will change a team. I think in basketball, it's a lot easier or in football. If it's the right position, it's easier. But you're right. The biggest increase was Florida. They saw a 0.91 percentage of a chance change, so less than a percent.

and the two that hurt their odds the most were Tampa and Calgary, and that was 0.91 the other way. So no full percentage point in terms of their chances to win the Stanley Cup improved through free agency this offseason for any team. It'll still be fun to read the – I've got to read this piece later today, and then it'll be fun to still go down to the comment section, see the anger for – I can't believe my team's odds moved by 0.7 percent and see the rage. but yes. And I can't, I can't wait to see people accusing you of showing a leaf bias. That'll be, everyone who hangs out in the comment section of Dom's article and demonstrates over and over again that they don't understand how numbers work can now migrate over to Jesse and the spend of a day yelling at him. The great part about that I always tell the commenters about stories specifically talking about betting is if you disagree with these numbers, they're literally there for you to bet against.

So the whole purpose of these numbers even being created is for you to wager against. So if you disagree with them, you've got a lot of money to make. Yeah, again, well said, because it's a segment brought to you by BetMGM, you know, the exclusive betting partner with the athletics. So maybe people can go ahead and figure out if they want to, if they want to go against Dom or Shane or anybody like Jayce, what he put together there. Listen, appreciate this. This was a lot of fun.

and we'll get it again. We'll get it again next Thursday. Awesome. Thanks for having me, guys. Great stuff with Jesse Granger there, as always. And before we open the bailbag, though, Sean, I do want to talk about something that I think turned into the biggest story in hockey this week, certainly on our side of the border up here in Canada.

That is the latest of the Hockey Canada abuse scandal. And there was two days of parliamentary hearings. I attended both of those in-prose. was about eight hours in total of, you know, sitting in a boardroom, across the street from Parliament Hill, listening to members of Parliament in Ottawa here, basically grill up executives from Hockey Canada, OHL, CHL, CHL, QMJHL commissioners, other stakeholders that were involved in this. Before I maybe pass along some of my observations from what I, you know, saw and heard and experience,

I actually just want to get your view on this because, I think sometimes when you cover his story the way that I've kind of been thrown into this one lately, you don't understand how it's landing on the outside. And in particular, when I've been at eight hours of meetings, I don't know, like, how is all of this resonating with people outside of the room? And I know that you were likely following along either on social media or watching those proceedings. I mean, how did you think things played out here this week? And were there any takeaways for you that really stuck with you?

I mean, the takeaway, if anything, is just that this continues to be a huge story in Canada, and it continues to be an evolving one. And, you know, I'm like a lot of people. When this story first started to percolate and you started getting some of the details, there was that cynical view of, oh, boy, I bet you this is just going to fade. I bet you this isn't, you know, they're going to run out the clock on this. And that certainly seemed to have been the strategy in 2018 was, you know, we can make this go away. And it worked for a few years.

And you wonder if it would work again. And if anything, we don't know how this is going to resolve. We don't know where this story goes. But at the very least, we can put away this idea that this is something that is going to go away on its own. It's not. This is huge up here. Yeah. And, you know, like for me, you know, the big takeaway I had was, you know, listening to these members of

Parliament and then also, you know, Sheldon Kennedy had a very strongly worded letter on social media that there isn't just a call for change from people. There's a demand for change. People are demanding that Hockey Canada, you know,

has a complete reset from the top. And, you know, I'll let our listeners in and even you hint on this. You know, Scott Smith, who is the current CEO of Hockey Canada, took over for Tom Rennie, to his credit, You know, he does the one hour, sorry, the three hours of parliamentary hearings.

We kind of as reporters, we rush out into the foyer, like the lobby of this area, thinking, okay, maybe he'll stop and maybe he won't. I wasn't thinking he was going to stop. He did. He stopped for questions. And I was a little bit taken aback. So they had a PR, media relations person directing the questions. All of a sudden, Sean, the guy points at me, he says, all right, you're up first.

and I'm like, oh no. Like, you know, it's, it's a, I'll be honest with you. For a sports guy, it's a little bit intimidating to be in the parliamentary environment. Not dissimilar, I would think, to when political and hard news people have to come cover sports. It's just, we live in separate worlds, right? And, you know, suddenly he points to me,

he's like, all right, you're up and identify yourself. I'm like, yeah, you know, Ian Medell's with the athletic. And I thought, you know, let me ask the question to Scott Smith of, and I think the way I phrased it was, do you understand the skepticism from the Canadian public that you are the right person and you are the right people to lead this change? And, you know, I think that's a fair question. And he was very emphatic that he is the right person. He says, you know what?

I am the right person. And I can lead this change. I just don't know that that answers satisfactory, though, right? To anybody, because I think what would have been more effective is if hockey, Canada officials got up there on this podium in this testimony on Wednesday and said before we begin, we would like to announce we have tendered our resignation effective immediately. We feel that the only way to affect change is to be the change. And by doing this, it is symbolic, but it's also a tangible sign of what we're doing.

I think that would have resonated with a lot of people. And I'm not saying that they can't be the ones to effectively drive change. I just feel like you had your chance to do that and you didn't do it. And I got to say it's all well and good that he feels he's the person to drive the change. It's not up to him at this point. Right. I mean, when you've got people calling for resignations, look, I mean, sometimes, yes, he probably should feel that he's the guy. Maybe you'd be disappointed if he didn't feel that way.

but this is, I don't think that on its own is going to be a satisfactory answer, even if that is really all that he probably could say. And again, this is a complicated story that is likely going to have a lot of moving parts in the weeks and months ahead. I do want to take one moment. And look, working on this with Katie Strang and Dan Robson has been a very eye-opening experience for me. Those two are phenomenal reporters.

Our editorial team is amazing. That's been great. I do want to just take one moment out of our podcast to tip our hat to Rick Westhead. Rick from TSN, in the last year, has, you know, roughly 12, 15 months, whatever it is, has broken the Kyle Beach story out of Chicago. The initial report that a young woman may have been sexually assaulted at a Hockey Canada event in London, Ontario in 2018, and the alleged incident of sexual assault of a young woman

by multiple players, which apparently might have been videotaped at the World Junior Championships in Halifax, 2003. All of those stories were initially found and reported by Rick Westhead. And the reason why I want to take a moment to tip my hat is I hope hockey fans listening to this podcast understand the importance of the Rick West heads and Katie Strangs to our industry. But Rick in particular has been the guy on these stories. He's kicked the door down.

He's allowed myself and Dan and Katie to start shining a light. He's allowed the globe and mail to start looking around. And, you know, Sean, we always look at, what's that award for media excellence at the Hall of Fame, the Elmer Ferguson Award? Yeah. I would put, if you're asking me what media person has had the biggest impact on the game in the last X number of years. The answer unequivocally is Rick Westhead. And what really bothers me is that he would never get a chance to get into the Hall of Fame. And I think what he's done has been Hall of Fame worthy coverage.

And I hope every hockey fan is appreciative of that, you know? Yep. Absolutely. And look, I will piggyback on that. I think you're being somewhat overly modest on the work that you and Katie and Dan have done. And as well as Mark and Scott in Chicago and covering Kyle Beach, I mean, these are tough stories. And one of the great things about working at the athletic is we're independent. We don't have business relationships with the NHL or anything like that that we have to tiptoe around,

which allows you guys to do some phenomenal work. to bring it back to Rick, I mean, Rick works for TSN. TSN has all sorts of relationships with the NHL, and that cannot be easy, you know, for him to be driving these sorts of stories in the hockey world,

and not just with the NHL, TSN and Hockey Canada have been hand in hand for decades. And yet, credit to Rick for doing the work and credit to TSN for getting out of the way and letting him do it. And I think that is very important. in our world that people be able to go out and find the truth,

even if the truth is going to tick off somebody that you may have a business relationship with. Yeah, exactly. That is well said. All right, like I said, that Hockey Canada story is certainly an evolving situation and one that I hope our listeners and audience will trust us to carry it moving forward. Let's wrap up the pod, Sean, as we always do, with a little mailbag stuff, chances for us to kind of get back into some lighter things.

Now, last week, you had maybe your most passionate take in the history of this podcast, at least my time with you. And that was you defending 1980s nachos from Maple Leaf Gardens. Okay? And Shauna has written in. And first of all, says, when I was growing up in Texas, our concession stand nachos were exactly like how Sean described those nachos from Maple Leaf Gardens. So wasn't just a Toronto thing. Texas too. Okay. Texas too. But Shawna also says when we talked about maybe trading recipes or different things from arenas, Sean says, look, I'm a vegetarian. I think that teams with decent pretzels should use their recipes in a trade.

And Washington can use Hershey's pretzels because those are the best arena pretzels I've had so far. First of all, are you even a pretzel guy when you go to a sporting event? I've never been a pretzel guy. Like, I will have like a bag of like the little pretzels, but I'm not like a, get a giant pretzel and some mustard and, you know, I have never been that. But did she say Hershey's pretzels? Yeah, this is what I'm trying to figure out. Was this a typo?

Or, because I'm thinking like, are these chocolate covered soft pretzels? Maybe. But you can't. I mean, it's Hershey's. That's Pennsylvania, isn't it? Like, isn't that going to be another thing that they're going to like, claim to? I don't know. There's another metro division

rivalry coming into focus here. Yeah, the pretzels. By the way, I got to say, I'm with you on the soft pretzels. Like, imagine if you went to somebody's house or you went anywhere, they're like, hey, would you like a piece of bread with some salt on it and I'll give you some mustard? You'd be like,

the hell are you talking about? But would you like a pretzel? Oh, yeah, sure. That's what it is. I mean. He's a bread with road salt on it. And mustard. People are going crazy. It doesn't work.

By the way, just on the topic of the food, I got to say, overwhelming response to my take that, it wasn't even a take. My speculation that they probably had cheese steaks in Philly arenas and sports venues that were terrible. The number of people who confirmed that was significant

that you could buy an overpriced Philly cheese steak that wasn't going to be very good if you were at a sporting event in Philadelphia. Well, in fact, Anthony is written into the show and you can email us to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. Anthony says, listen to your pod, guys. At the end, you mentioned you were both curious

if there was legit cheese steaks at the Wells Fargo Center. We used to have Campos, which was a great old school place on Market Street, but about three or four years ago, they got rid of it, put in a generic place. It's truly dreadful, and yes, it'll cost you 15 bucks. There it is. So there you go.

I have very few takes on this podcast that are correct. But the one where I had no idea what I was talking about was just guessing seems to have been a whole month. Okay. One other one here from Aaron, who's got a quick would you rather game. And actually, this is like one of those great questions that you probably would have put together in one of your written piece mailbags because you always have some fun questions. Here's a would you rather game for the two of you. if we gave you a chance to assemble a team of players that were all drafted in the seventh round or later

and you could have them in their best season, would you take that team? Or would you take a team of first overall picks who played as they did in an average year in their career? So what Aaron is saying, you could take some late draft picks seventh round or later, you take them in their best season, and you put them head to head against number one overall picks

who are just having an average season. Right. I mean, that's a tough one because obviously you're talking first overall picks. You've got like 40 guys, 50, if you go back to the amateur draft days, to choose from versus seventh round and later hundreds upon hundreds that have made the NHL. And you're getting their best season. You get to cherry pick the best season.

Boy, that's a tough. one because, you know, you wouldn't, I mean, first of all, goal-tending would be an enormous edge for the late picks because they'd have Hasek, they'd have Pecker-Rene, they'd have some other guys, whereas, I mean, team first overall has got Mark Andre Fleury and not much else, but DiPietro might be your backup. So, you know, right there, that's a big one. Defensemen, there's not a lot of defensemen, they get picked first overall, so I mean, you're probably going to have an advantage year, but then, you know, you get to

the forwards and you've got Nick David and Matthews and Mario and, you know, guys like that. It is, you know, taking the average season. I don't know. Is an average Matt Sundeen or Mike Medano better than Keith Doug Gilmore? Maybe.

Maybe not. I don't know. You'd have to kind of lay it out. But I really feel like you're going to be top-heavy with that first overall team, but you're going to start running out of guys pretty soon. Yeah. All right.

Let's go to this week in hockey history. just won for you this week. I want to go to July 26, 1988. Because I've got two things to get to bring into this. July 26, 1988, Larry Robinson, who had spent 17 years with the Montreal Canadian Science with L.A. As a free agent, Robinson would play three more years with the Kings, and they would make the playoffs each year.

So, Sean, Larry Robinson played 20 years in the NHL, made the playoffs every year. The question I asked to you is, is there any scenario where you could see player in today's NHL going wire to wire without ever missing the playoffs? I can't imagine. Not in a 20-year career, not in a 32 team league, unless they expand the playoffs. You know, if we do that someday, then maybe.

But no, I mean, back then, and this, I'm taking nothing away from Larry Robinson, but most of his career spent in the 21 team NHL when 16 teams made the playoffs and even any basic competence, which certainly that that old Montreal Canadian's team had was a surefire ticket to the playoffs. I can't see it. I can't imagine that compared to today where we, you know, we see good teams. It's the playoffs because half the league does.

And 20 years in a row, I can't, I can't even imagine. No. I'm like, because, yeah, think of like, if you're a generational player and you're taking to the top of the draft, you're like, Crosby, he missed year one, right? Matthews he missed in the beginning. And it's very hard to just all of a sudden, if you're a high draft pick,

you're in the playoffs year one and then it's off and running. I'm with you. I think, Hey, we got to play. Austin Matthews has made it every year. He's, if we count.

He has, right. Yeah, 1617. He made it at the first year. So maybe Austin Matthew's on the way. I mean, he's certainly not racking up a lot of wear and tear from all those seasons,

uh, being one and done every year. So maybe, maybe he's, he's got the secret to do it. I don't know. I don't know if that Arizona team's going to be good enough a couple years. Wow.

There you go, putting it out there. I wonder, like, I wonder right now what, and maybe it is Matthews, but what player from the start of his career has the longest playoff street going? Might be.

Yeah, as far as having never missed. It's tough because even guys like Sidney Crosby, you know, there's been a couple years. Yeah. They missed, Washington missed a year.

So, yeah, it's, I'm sure somebody's got a longer street than Matthews, because Matthews would only be, what, six years at this? Five years, six years, yeah. Somebody else has got to be out there. But yeah, it's tough. It's tough.

Especially if you're a big star because that means you're drafted at the top of the draft, which means you're going to a team that isn't very good. You're probably going to miss year one, you would think. So, I don't know. Well, somebody can figure that out for us. Yeah. All right. And the other reason why I want to bring that one up, so Larry Robinson signs with the L.A. Kings, real quick, The L.A. Kings were in the news this week, Sean, as they announced that Dustin Brown would get a statue. What was your immediate reaction when you heard Dustin Brown was getting a statue, a commemorative statue by the L.A. Kings?

I was surprised, especially when you see the names of like other people who have statues around that building. It's like Magic Johnson and Dustin Brown. Yeah, that's a surprise to me. When you consider like, you know, When I think LA Kings, I think Gretzky, Luke Robatai, guys like that, obviously, you would assume Copadar and Dowdy. And Dustin Brown seemed weird to me. And I feel like I have to sort of, I feel like this needs to be the same criteria I use when it comes to retired jerseys, which is whatever that fan base wants is fun. I don't think anyone outside of Vancouver gets to say, oh, Marcus Nazzlin shouldn't have his number of guys. Screw that.

The fans like it. I'm good with it. I guess the same should apply to the statues. But boy, that seems like I don't ever want to be doing like a worst guys to have a statue. But, you know, it'd be Ted Rogers and Dustin Brown at some point. Oh, man. Or yeah, or any politician from the 1800s, right? Like they're like, ah, that guy shouldn't have a statue to take it down.

But yeah, is Dustin Brown? the only guy in hockey history to have gone from, should we buy this guy out to a statue? I think so, right? Like, it's unbelievable. Like, remember when they announced they're doing his number two, which is cool. I'm good with that.

The guy was the captain of your Stanley Cup winning team. Absolutely by all means, retire his number. But boy, yeah, I don't know that. Yeah, the bio, maybe the buyout. Maybe the buyout statute combo has to become a thing. It's a look. You get a call from the GM.

Hey, we're giving you a statue. Cool. Well, hold on. There's part two of this message. That's right. You're going to be free for ceremony day because you're unemployed. Yeah. Oh, man.

All right. Hey, listen, we'll leave it there. I appreciate everybody for those emails and your feedback into the show. We love it, especially here in the summertime. We love trying to tackle some of your questions. You can always email us to the appell us. to The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. Not a subscriber with us.

You can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show. Get an annual subscription for a dollar a month for the first six months. You can also subscribe to the Athletic Audio Plus on Apple Podcast. You'll get all of our bonus content from the entire network. Start with a 30-day free trial. And then it's just 99 cents a month after that.