The Athletic Hockey Show - J.T. Miller's comments on the Canucks' return to play, Nick Foligno joins the Toronto Maple Leafs, and more

Episode Date: April 15, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss Taylor Hall to the Bruins and Jack Eichel being out for the remainder of the season, who has a better chance next season of starting on their current team? Also, J.T. Miller's comments about the Canucks resuming their season, and with Nick Foligno joining the Maple Leafs, what is the best father-son combo to play for one franchise?Then in "Granger Things", Jesse Granger jumps on to talk about if the deadline moved the needle for future odds, and in "This Week in Hockey History" a look back at a goalie with an extraordinary hockey name, and Teemu Selanne's rookie scoring record.Have a question for the show? Email [e-mail], or leave a VM at [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back. It's another edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. I'm Ian Meddis, back with Sean McIndoo on this episode of the podcast. The saga of the Vancouver Canucks rolls on. Now with some spicy comments added to the mix from J.T. Miller. We'll chat about some post-trade deadline winners and losers and how those moves affected the betting lines with Jesse Granger. As part of Granger things, we'll talk father-and-son combos in the wake of the Nick Falino train. as he goes to his dad's old team, the Toronto Maple Leafs. Your listener questions include an idea for power plays in overtime, and this week in hockey history looks at one of the best hockey names ever,

as well as Tammu Salani's potentially unbreakable rookie record. So, Sean, as we kick off this episode of the podcast, it's a few days after the trade deadline. First of all, how much did you enjoy doing that live blog, kind of throughout the day on trade deadline day with Sean Gentile. The two of you were kind of hamming it up on on trade deadline day. While people were doing serious work and analyzing trades, you guys were like, okay, we're here for the jokes. Yeah. I like how you make that sound like it was a one-day departure and not my entire career of just sitting back while other people do

serious, difficult work and just dropping in one-liners from the cheap seats. It was fun. I love working with Sean and it was a it honestly if you if you were doing that sort of thing it was probably just about right as far as a deadline because it was quiet but not too quiet there was enough going on to keep us moving but it wasn't one of those deadlines like we have seen years ago where it just felt like a fire hose and there were so many deals coming in like this year was slow and it was we expected that but it gave you enough time to sort of chew on each deal as came in. Yeah.

And so obviously, you know, you get the usual kind of winners and losers. And we're going to talk a little bit later, too, about, you know, Nick Folino joining the Toronto Maple Leafs and kind of talk about some father and son deals. And, you know,

we'll talk about Taylor Hall, too, is something that I'd like to get into. And maybe, actually, maybe we'll start right there with Taylor Hall, only because there was so much hand-wringing going on with, I can't believe Nick Falino went for a first round pick, and Taylor Hall went for his second round pick.

As we've had now a couple of days to unpack all of that, how do you feel about what Boston gave up to get Taylor Hall? Well, from the Boston side, it's a great deal. There's just, there's no question there. You're getting a guy who, yes, he's having a bad season, but the potential is there. And given the price that you paid, even if you don't get anything close to full power Taylor Hall, even if you're just getting three quarters or whatever. whatever it is, that's still more than enough to make it worth what they gave up.

I mean, you forget about Nick Falino. Sam Bennett got more on the trade market than Taylor Hall did, which is just doesn't make any sense in from a strict perspective of the value that those guys bring to the table. Now, there was more than that at player. Obviously, Taylor Hall has a big cap hit, so you had to figure out a way to work that. That may have taken some teams out of the running. the bigger story or the bigger issue, and we haven't really had somebody come out and say this directly, but certainly you can read between the lines, is that Taylor Hall, with his no trade clause, may have given the Sabres some limited options and that there may have been other deals,

potentially that came in late in the process that Taylor Hall said no to, or at least that he expressed a strong preference to go to Boston, and that Kevin Adams made that happen for him. That gets into a tricky territory, right? Because on the one hand, there's a tendency among some fans, and I get it to say, look, if the Sabres only had one team to work with, then that's all they had. And whatever you get, you get. Kevin Adams can hold his breath and stamp his feet and say, I want a first round pick.

But if the Bruins know they're the only team that's bidding, they're not going to go to that level on the price. and yeah, that is true. But my counter to that would be Taylor Hall's no trade clause didn't just drop out of the sky. Kevin Adams gave him that clause so he knows it's there. He has known all year long and it's, it is, we have known for a month where the Sabre season was going and we knew that Taylor Hall deal was going to have to happen. And I think when you're a GM and you know a players got a no trade clause, hey, players have the right to use their no trade clause. It's in their contract. There is nothing wrong with the player using it.

But there is also nothing wrong with a team doing everything they can to make sure they have as many options as are available. And I would love to know behind the scenes because we don't know. We were not part of these conversations. But how was this managed from a Buffalo Sabres perspective? Did they just go to Taylor Hall a few days before the deadline and say, okay, where's the list? We're ready to start working on a deal? Or are they working with him all along throughout this saying, what are the options? and, you know, here's some situations maybe that would work.

Would you consider that? Will you get back to us on some other things? Because, look, if I'm Kevin Adams and I'm a rookie GM, and I know that there's a lot of people around the league that are kind of looking at me sideways going, is that guy really, is he really the right guy to dig this franchise out? I'm going to Taylor Hall in his camp, and I'm saying, guys, I cannot make a bad deal here.

I've got to do something that shows the league that I'm serious and shows my fan base that I'm serious. is you can't just give me one team. We've got to work together. And if you need some time to think about certain options, okay, let's do that. Maybe we have to get this deal done earlier and we can't just leave it to the night before. But I'm going to them and say it. I really have to push back and say we've got to get a few different options.

And at the end of the day, maybe Taylor Hall says, no, you know what? It's Boston or it's nothing. And I've been here for only a couple months and I don't feel any loyalty and I don't feel any need to help you out. Boston or nowhere. at that point, if you're Kevin Adams, I really think you've got to consider saying, hey, man, if all I can get is a second round pick, then enjoy Buffalo. And you can just go into your free agency with no playoff games, no meaningful hockey on your resume. And you can see how that works out for you.

You hope it doesn't get to that point. And obviously, even if it did, when the deal gets done, you want to present a happy face to the, you know, to everybody. And you're not necessarily going to start bearing each other right away. But that whole situation with the no trade clause, I do. do wonder how that played out. And, you know, if I'm a Sabres fan, I'm sitting there going, man, if this guy really only did give us one team and he limited our options, I'm not too happy about that. Or if there were maybe the potential for other deals, but we came to him too late in the process,

then that bugs me from another perspective. But the bottom line, if I'm a Sabers fan, maybe I don't really care about what went on behind the scenes. All I know is this was the big ticket that we were told that, you know, we had to look forward to that, hey, at least at the deadline, you've got this big name in play. And we got less for him than the Calgary Flames got for Sam Bennett. Yeah. You know, as I look back at John Vogel's reporting, it sounded like, you know, maybe a Western conference team was an option that they could have gotten a decent return or something better. But yeah, Taylor Hall wanted to go to Boston. And it makes me think, and I can't remember, I,

I want to say it was the trade deadline in 20. If it wasn't 2014, it was 2015. What kind of sorcery did Steve Eisenman work with Martin St. Louis? When San Luis was like, it's the Rangers or nothing. And Steve Eisenman on deadline day was able to get a first round pick, a second round pick. And hey, do you mind throwing in your captain, Ryan Callahan? What happened there? Because San Luis painted him into a corner.

And I'd certainly hit a home run, right? You know what? I might be breaking some new ground here, but I'm starting to feel like Steve Eisenman is good at this. I'm starting to think that Steve Iserman is, he knows what he's doing. And yeah, that was a situation where, again, that's the counter. Even if you have only one team to work with, yeah, sometimes you can still figure out a way to make it work. Now, Martin Saint-Louis was also, I mean, I think he was the reigning Rottes winner at the time. And Taylor Hall is, you know, not that at this point. So, you know, I get that it's difficult. And you're right. There was there was a report on one of the, you know, one of the deadline shows. And I don't remember who gave it, but they, they were suggesting that Vegas came in late and that Vegas maybe made a better offer. And I kind of get that. Like, if, I can see that if I'm Taylor Hall and the Sabres come to me and they say, it looks like it's Boston, how do you feel about that? And I'm kind of getting my head around it. And I sleep on it. And I think, yeah, I can, I can see myself in

Boston. And then they come to me on Sunday night and say, wait a second, maybe now it's Vegas. I could kind of see a player saying, you know what, no, you told me Boston. Boston is, you know, I'm now in that mind frame. But again, I mean, you hate to get into it. You always, anytime you've got any player comes in, you want to have the relationship go well, you signed a big free agent. The Sabres are going to want to sign free agents again. They don't want to put a knife in this guy's back on the way out the door. But at the same time, you know, if I'm trying to trade Taylor Hall, a guy who has played two playoff rounds in his entire 10-year career, if I'm sitting there and he's telling me, no, I'm not interested in going to Colorado.

No, I'm not interested in going to Vegas. Now, Toronto, no, I don't think so. I'm not really sure how I feel about that, but I'm thinking, if I'm Kevin Adams, I'm not going to wear that myself. I'm going to make sure that that's knowing, and maybe that comes in the next little while, or maybe it doesn't, and we all just move on and say this is the best fit they could find and everyone did the best they could. And we move on and just kind of forget all about the Taylor Hall and Buffalo era. Yeah, you know, and speaking of Buffalo, another big story this week is Jack Eichel will not come back to play this season,

kind of shutting down the season, doing an injury. And the focus is on getting back ready to go next fall. Let me ask you this question here, because Taylor Hall and Jack Eichel were supposed to be this like one-two punch, help out the Sabres. Hall's in Boston, Eichael, obviously still in Buffalo. Let's fast forward to the start of. next season, Sean. Who are you more confident will start next season with the team that they've kind of ended this year with? Is it Taylor Hall in, can you see Taylor Hall starting next year in Boston? Or do you have an easier time picturing Jack Eichael starting next season in Buffalo?

Wow. That is such a tough question because my first instinct on that question is, well, I can see Jack Eichael being in Buffalo because he's a star player. He would be a blockbuster trade. and most NHLGMs don't like making those sorts of deals. But there's been so much smoke to this fire over this season. You really have to wonder if this is a situation where Jack Eichel is maybe done. Maybe he's ready to go. And, you know, Taylor Hall in Boston, look, it's going to depend on how he plays. And it's going to depend on what sort of deal he wants.

you know, Taylor Hall, if he wants $8 million a year again, I can't see him getting that in Boston. I can't see a guy coming in and saying, oh, you know what, I'm going to need more than Patrice Bergeron. I'm going to need more than Brad Marchand. I'm going to need more than David Pasternak to play on your second line. I don't see that playing out well, but maybe it's a great fit. And if I'm Taylor Hall, man, how many teams can you bounce around before you say, you know, okay, this has got to be a fit. I've got to settle in here.

So, you know, I still think it's the most likely. scenario, probably Jack Eichel staying in Buffalo, but man, this is just another reason why the Taylor Hall return bugs me a little bit and why, if I'm Kevin Adams, there's a part of me sitting there going, if I got to trade Jack Eichol in the offseason, what reputation do I want to have? Do I want to be the guy who drives a hard bargain and I will walk away even if the offer isn't there? Or am I the guy who'll just take what he can get? Because, man, if you thought the offers weren't really great for Taylor Hall. Wait until you see Jack Eichael, who's a much better player, but if it becomes known that

Jack Eichael wants out, these GMs are going to be calling up Kevin Adams, and he'll be saying, hey, I need this and this and this, and they'll say, yeah, sure, you did. You needed a first round pick for Taylor Hall, too, but you took way less than that. It's going to make it tough. So we're going to have to see. The answer, of course, is it's going to be up to Jack Eichael. If he wants to stick around, I think the Sabres will have him stick around. I don't think this is a deal they make by choice.

But if he wants out and he's willing to squeeze a little bit to make that happen, then you've got to find, you're back in that situation of having to find the best offer and you've got to hope you have more success than you did on this trade deadline. Yeah. So, I mean, I think probably as much as the trade deadline was a huge story in the National Hockey League this week, probably the biggest one. And it's something we touched on last week, Sean, in this podcast was the Vancouver Canucks.

And even last week when we were tackling this, we felt like, man, this seems a little bit early for them to be coming back and playing games in the middle of April. But as we sit here now, why don't we have a listen to J.T. Miller's comments. Vancouver Connects forward. J.T. Miller did a Zoom conference call with reporters on Wednesday. And have a listen. It's Ian McIntyre who asked the question to J.T. Miller and have a listen to what the

Connux Forward had to say. What was your reaction, J.T, when you saw the schedule that the NHL presented for you guys? Yeah, I don't know. I haven't really thought about hockey much. Like I said, alluding to the answer, I just gave Thomas. But at the same time, I think it's just a little, it's kind of crazy. I know that everybody's got a job to do, but to expect pretty much our entire team to be ready to play. one practice in a pregame skate is a little bit hard to comprehend.

And when I say looking out for people's health and my family and my teammates and their families, I mean, from the guys that are going to play, this is going to be a really tough challenge. And, you know, even for me, you know, skating a couple times and, you know, my lungs are screaming and definitely not in game shape at all right now from sitting around and not just doing much. And I couldn't imagine what these guys are going to have to go through to get back and be ready to play at a high level against, you know, we're playing two of the, two of the best players in the entire world on Friday and another one of the best teams in the league on Saturday. So it's, I never thought I'd be in this scenario in my career. It's going to be a start of a really

long stretch, short but hard stretch at the end of the year here. So a reaction, I don't know. It's not, it's not ideal, obviously, for anybody, but there's, we have a, job to do, I guess. And I don't know. All right, Sean. So, I mean, listen, I think it's some, some eye-opening comments from J.T. Miller talking about kind of the reluctance to play, the uncertainty to play. You got to remember, Miller's not even a guy who had COVID.

He was like one of the outliers with the Kinex team. But he's talking about the reluctance. He's not sure. Like, there's a lot of people wondering where the PA is. And look, we're going to hammer this home. This is a fluid situation. And, you know, as we record this, there's an opportunity for this. story to change in the next few hours.

If I had the guess, I do not think the Vancouver Connects will play this weekend. They're scheduled to play Friday and Saturday. Five games in seven days coming back for a team ravaged by COVID. Sean, it seems short-sighted. It seems almost cruel to be doing this. Is J.T. Miller's, do you think J.T. Miller's comments on Wednesday will be enough to kind of, I guess, wake up some people here, just push this thing down the road a little bit?

I think it will be. And you're right. By the time people are listening to this, they may already have that answer. But those comments were, that went beyond just somebody expressing a little bit of reluctance. This wasn't somebody saying, wow, gosh, you know, it's going to be tough. But I guess, I guess we're going to do what we got to do. They came across to me as not just stronger than that, but calculated. This was a guy who knew the reaction that these comments were going to create.

I think the team that put him in front of those cameras and in front of those microphones knew what was going to happen. In fact, it was interesting. Even the Canucks official Twitter account was tweeting out those comments. And there's been reporting from Elliott Friedman and others that some of the other Canucks have now stepped up and behind the scenes and having these conversations with the PA and saying, We might not be ready. I mean, this is the sort of thing where the answer here is a simple one. And the answer is, you've got to listen to the Canucks players here and the organization and everybody who is affected. If they say, you know what, we're ready to go.

We're hockey players and this is what we do and we want to get back at it. Then, okay, I'm good with them finishing out the season. But they're not saying that. At least some of them aren't. And, yeah, to have them play Friday, Saturday, back-to-back games right? out of the gate, you know, and then they've got Edmonton and then Toronto twice, two really skilled teams. So, I mean, if you're even one step slow, those games have the chance to just be a total debacle. Then they've got something like, I think, five straight against Calgary and

Ottawa, where those games don't even matter at this point. So it's kind of like we said last week. What are we doing here? What do we gain, you know, is it about, is it about TV deals that You hope not. I mean, that first leaf game, that's the Saturday night, hockey night and Canada game. We know the Leafs on a Saturday night is a big deal. You hope that's not what's pushing this to get back out there. But at the end of the day, look, we all want a nice, even schedule where everyone plays the same number of games, and that games play column looks great at the end of the year.

But we knew coming into this that there were going to be scenarios where that wasn't going to happen. And this is one of those scenarios. And if the players are saying we're not ready yet, as far as I'm concerned, that's it. That's the end of the conversation. They're not ready yet. You can't put 20 guys out there on the ice Friday night who don't feel like they're ready to go. Because at that point, it starts to feel like the best case is that we get a joke of a game where, you know, one team is in playoff mode and one team is in preseason slash all-star game mode.

That feels like the best case, let alone, you know, what happens if guys are rusty and guys get hurt? what happens if, I mean, God forbid, what happens if somebody gets sick again? I mean, you just go down the list. It's not worth it to get a six-place team up to that magic number of games played. Yeah, and that's just it. It's not like they are Arizona or St. Louis or one of these teams that's on the playoff bubble, right, that these games matter. They don't matter.

They statistically have, mathematically have almost no chance of qualifying for the Stanley Cup playoffs. And, you know, I remember we talked about this last week. I said, what if Ottawa and Vancouver played, if they're hellbends on getting to 56 games, why don't you just have them play Ottawa and Calgary while the real playoffs are going on? And it's not that far out of the realm of kind of what they're doing here. Like, they are going to be playing games as scheduled now, possibly while the playoffs are going on in the United States. I'm with you. Like, what are we doing here?

Like, it's one thing if these games mattered. But J.T. Miller's comments to me, you're right. it felt like it was pointed. It felt like it was with a purpose. And it was to alert the world of how the players are feeling inside that dressing room. And they don't feel ready to play. I always thought when, when, I think it was Darren Dregger that first put it out last week. When Dreg said, you know, they're looking at coming back next week.

I thought next week. Like April 15th, April 16th, they're coming back. I am flabbergasted that they would do this in this particular. scenario. And because here's the other thing, because I know some people will say, well, other teams have been through this and they came back. You know, they, Buffalo, New Jersey, a few others. Hey, they came back and they did.

But first of all, we can learn from those situations. And you look at it, maybe they shouldn't have or maybe they shouldn't have that quickly. The other piece to look at this is, especially with New Jersey and especially with Buffalo. And I get the sense there's some people in the Sabres. organization who maybe would like to say this out loud and they know that they can't because it's the NHL and you're not allowed to make excuses for anything or anything that even sounds like an excuse. But definitely New Jersey and Buffalo, you look at their results after they came back. That's when those teams both fell off a cliff.

Like there clearly was a performance impact. So, I mean, if you're here about, well, but the sanctity of the game and, you know, this and that, we might not get that because we might not be good. Vancouver Canucks obviously weren't a great team to start with. neither were the devils or the sabers, but there could be a serious drop-off here, and I know there's some people on the Sabre side that kind of wish that people were looking at that a little bit more

when they were talking about how terrible the Sabres are and what an embarrassment this team is to go, hey, man, we got wiped out by COVID, and that really had an impact on our season. And, you know, if you're Vancouver, you're just sitting there going, what, are we going to come back and play, what, 15 more games to get our teeth kicked in

by teams that are healthy and playing? for something. It's, it's, you know, it's potentially a bad situation. And we don't know yet really what the impact is. You know, some people get COVID. They feel fine. Some people get COVID. They feel bad. They come back. They're back to 100%. And some don't. You know, sometimes it does stick with you for a while. It's just an awful situation to put guys in. And again, it's, I, I, you almost hate to say it. But if we had full buildings and we had then maybe you could say, every game we don't play, that's a big chunk of revenue we're losing. I'm not sure what we're losing by not doing this other than, yes, I'm sure there's TV

deals and partnerships and that sort of thing, but they're called partnerships for a reason. They're your partners. You can work with them. And I'm sure if you sit there and say, hey, I'm sure you don't want your logo slapped on a game with 20 guys who don't want to be playing or being forced into it, is there a way we can work this in another way? There's got to be a way for sanity and prevail here. and we come up with an arrangement that works

if we've got a team that doesn't want to be out there. You know, as we wrap up this conversation, don't forget the Dallas stars on that list of teams that were kind of ravaged by COVID. If you're looking at a list of kind of underachieving teams, they went to the Stanley Cup final last year. I think Dallas would be on a lot of people's list. They had a huge COVID outbreak at the start of the season,

and they've kind of just been, you know, they've just kind of been a pedestrian team this year. And it'll be really interesting to go, you'll have to wait until the season's over, but is there a kind of a line that we can draw between teams that had significant COVID outbreaks and their season and how it unfolded. Yeah, and it's it and you know, one of the arguments for putting them back out there is, well, we got to get them to 56 games because it's the playoff race and they played some

teams more than others and we got to balance it out. I mean, what, the Oilers have got, what, four or five games left against the Canucks? If they're playing a Canuck, a depleted Canucks team and getting five easy one, wins, is that good? Is that good for the sanctity of the playoff race? Is that making it fair? Or is it doing the opposite? Because, yeah, there's a lot of teams. And we've sort of not talked about it a lot. And maybe that's just us as fans kind of not wanting to acknowledge what's happening right in front of us. But typically when this thing goes through a team, that team does not come back playing the same way. All right. So I got to ask you about this year. And that is the Toronto Maple Leafs acquired Nick, Nick Folino this week. And it's one of those cool stories.

You know, I remember Nick and Nick played in Ottawa. I remember years ago Nick telling me, you know, Pat Burns, when Nick was like four years old, five years old, his dad was playing for the Leafs and those great teams of the early 90s. And I remember Nick telling me that, you know, Pat Burns would always have a little jar of candy in his office at Maple Leaf Gardens. And Nick always was allowed to go in. And we used to offer him, hey, come and hang out and your dad's on the ice. And he just has wonderful memories. I love stories like this because now it comes full circle.

And then it got me thinking, like how many times have a father in. son played for the same franchise. Obviously, the Hows jumped to mind originally because they actually played at the same time in Hartford. But then I was thinking, like, how many times has this happened? And like, what's the best father's son combo that's ever played for one team and like maybe accumulated the most points? And I was thinking, who would be a good person? If only I knew somebody who liked obscure trivia and this type of thing. I'm like, wait a minute, I host a podcast with this guy. So I know you did a little bit of digging here. What do we got here? All time best father, son combos, one franchise. Like, do we know even who might even have the most points for one

franchise as a father's son? Well, I mean, the answer is it's a, it's a shorter list than you would think. I, you know, when you first pitch this question to me, I was saying, all right, let's dig into this. There's got to be a lot. And because especially it's the NHL, they love family connections. Every pair of brothers in the N. plays together at some point. Like, it is just, I mean, you think about the Rashar's played together forever, the Siddins, obviously. You go down the list.

You're talking two brothers. They always end up on the same team, the stalls. You can keep going. So I figured there'd be a ton of father and sons out there because there have been lots of father-son combos who have played in the NHL. You don't seem to be an awful lot that played for the same team. And certainly not a lot where they had their best seasons with the same. same team. Like you mentioned the Hows, right? And we don't, with apologies to the many

Harford Whaler fans that I'm sure listen to this podcast, you know, we don't really think of Gordie Howe as a, uh, as a Hartford Whaler. Um, if, you know, if you want to say, for example, one franchise, I'll give you the best pair of stars. Stassness. It's, well, see, that was my answer for in terms of the, the, uh, the father-son pairing that did the most with that team. really the only one I can think of. Peter Stasney with the Nordiques in the 80s was a legitimate superstar, Hall of Famer, I think second in scoring in the decade, the Wayne Gretzky. And then Paul Stasney plays for Colorado and isn't at that level,

but plays for a while and at a high level. That's kind of the only one I can think of, where both of them, if you were to take their production with that team, that you get two guys who played at a star level, that's that's kind of all that I've got. The one that I was going to say is if you're just saying franchise, the Hulls, Bobby Hull played a handful of games for the Winnipeg Jets after they came over from WHA. He played a lot of games for the WHA. He plays a handful of games with the Jets.

This is such a stretch. And then Brett Hohel, you know, the Jets moved to Arizona. Five games. Brett Hull plays six, five or six games at the start of the lockout and then goes, yeah, I'm done. I'm a head out. I think that between them, it's probably less than 25 games at the NHL level, but those are two, two Hall of Favors.

You know, I'll give you a couple other ones. And what's interesting to me is there's, you know, there are some you could find like Kevin Lowe and Edmonton and then Keegan played, plays for the Oilers. The Hextel's,

not Ron Hextel, but the generation before, because that's a three-generation family. They were on the same team. But here's the one franchise that tends to come up a little bit when you look at this is the Boston Bruins. Ray Bork, for example. Chris Bork played for the Bruins briefly, not with a ton of success. The Donato's would be another one, Ted Donato, Ryan Donato.

And then the other one, this is the one that's maybe a little bit close to the Stasnese, is Ken Hodg. Yeah. And Ken Hodge, of course, a legitimate star for the Brinianne's. Bruins for a long time. And then Ken Hodge Jr. shows up in Boston with all of that pressure. I mean, talk about you're not even, it's not even your dad. It's the same name at this point. And he had a great rookie season there in the early 90s. I think he was up for the Calder. I think he was on the all rookie team, looked like he was headed towards being a star. And then it didn't, it didn't really happen. And he moved on and didn't have much of an

NHL career. But he at least had for a time look like he might be headed towards it. same level. That's as much as I've got. Like, I feel like there's got to be more out there, and I'm sure. And if you go way back to the early days, you're talking like the Patrick family and some of these other famous families, then yes, you do get into a little more when there was only a handful of teams and you would see some more father-son stuff. But in the modern era, that's kind of it. And maybe, you know, I'm sure we're missing some. People can hit us up on Twitter. People can drop something in the mailbag and let us know. and we can circle back to it next week.

But there just is not a lot of these father-son combos that have the potential to do what the felinos are doing, which is potentially have an impact on the Stanley Cup chances of the same team, a generation apart. Yeah. Ken Hodg Jr., 30 goals in his rookie year. And you're right. He was a finalist for the Calder, Sean, finishing behind Sergey Fedorov, who was the runner-up and Ed Belfort, who won it with 43 wins. Not bad guys to finish behind. Yeah.

A couple of Hall of Famers. All right, Sean, it is time to bring back Jesse Granger for Granger things at a reminder of this segment. As always brought to you by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner of the athletic. Jesse Granger, welcome back to the show. I know we didn't have you last week because of all the stuff leading into trade deadline. How are things in Vegas? And what are people, how are Vegas fans feeling about what Kelly McCrimmon and company did or didn't? didn't do around the trade deadline. Yeah, things are great in Vegas. It was a quiet deadline,

much like the rest of the NHL. It was a little quieter for Vegas. The Golden Knights have, basically, they have not had a deadline where they didn't make a blockbuster move. If you look back just to the three years that they've been in the league, the first year, they were trying to get Eric Carlson. They didn't end up doing that. And they went and spent a first, second, and third on Tomas Chattar. That trade didn't work out. But then the next year, they acquire Mark Stone at the deadline. That was obviously a huge trade. It's the best player on the team now. Last year, they go out get Alec Martinez and Robin Lennar, which was a big trade as far as just changing the makeup of this team. This year, it was quiet. They added Matias Yanmark from Chicago. They paid a pretty steep

price, second and third round pick for him. But at the same time, I honestly think that they did all right considering all the circumstances. They were a team that had less than a million dollars in salary cap space. They've been playing with, as people I'm sure have heard, they've been playing with 16 skaters. It's been crazy with the salary cap this year for the Golden Knights. They didn't have a ton of room. So the fact that, and then you add into that that the market was, owners were just not willing to take on salary. And it's been the case since the pandemic started and there aren't fans in the buildings. They aren't making the type of profits that they normally would. So I think a team that was needing to sell salary for nothing in a market like this was

in a really tough spot. The Golden Knights were able to find a way to broker Matias Yanmark through the San Jose Sharks and it only cost him a fifth round pick. Yanmark isn't the big splash deal that you're expecting for a team like the Golden Knights who are expected to contend for a Stanley Cup. But I do think that sometimes, and like we heard this a lot talking about Taylor Hall in Toronto and philigno and the values. And it's like maybe fit is more important than how like high profile the player is.

And I think Matias Yanmark is going to fit really well in Vegas. And I think he fits a specific need that they have been trying to solve for about four years now. They've had very good forward depth. But the third line, they cannot turn into an offensive line to save them. They have Alex Tuck on that line, who's one of the best offensive third-line players in the entire NHL, and they just haven't been able to find a complimentary wing for him to give that line a chance to be consistently producing offense. And Yanmark was in the lineup last night for the first time.

They're playing against the King, so we'll take it with a grain of salt. But they were absolutely dominant and scored two goals. Yanmark had an assist, a really nice one to Alex Tuck. So they looked great. And if that third line is suddenly a dangerous offensive offensive. line to add to the line of Patcheretti Stone and Stevenson that's been one of the best lines in hockey and then the William Carlson, Riley Smith, Jonathan Marshall, so line that's been very good, all of a sudden, if that works out, that trade that seems minor may end up making a bigger impact

than maybe thought. You know, I think I'm really curious to get your take on maybe how some things shifted, if at all, in and around the trade deadline. In particular, I look at that East Division where it was almost like all of the heavyweights picked up something, right? Pittsburgh got Carter and Boston got Hall and Washington made that deal with Mantha and the Islanders with Paul Mary. So are we seeing much of a movement there in terms of betting action on those teams? Or how did things kind of shake out with the trade deadline? Yeah, that was definitely the division that drew my attention also. It was an arms race for sure.

And the NHL, especially in the betting market, isn't like some of the other sports. like NBA, I think is the best example. The NBA trade deadline odds will shift dramatically when a team makes a big trade because one player can make such a big difference in a team's odds. The new, the Brooklyn Nets are a perfect example. They add a huge player in their odds like it's massive changes. In hockey, it doesn't really happen that way, especially in a deadline like this, where Kyle Palmeri was the biggest chip of the trade to him and Taylor Hall were the biggest

chips of the trade deadline. So the odds don't shift dramatically after a trade deadline. But as the betting market starts changing the way they're betting, you will see those odds change. So if my suggestion is if you see a team that you like and you like what they did at the trade deadline, now is the time to bet them. Because if that acquisition starts to work, you're going to see money start to roll in on that team. And that's when the odds go down. The NHL odds are a lot more reactionary to the money coming in on teams than they are trying to predict what people are going to bet.

So they're changing it ahead of time. that rarely happens. So you mentioned the East. I think the Islanders are a team. They're at 14 to 1 odds right now. And they're second in the East. They're only a couple points behind Washington. They're a really solid team. They play great structural defense. We know what Barry Trott does in the playoffs. They, to me, the biggest issue for them is a little bit scoring at five on five, but more so their power play has been bad. Bottom 10 and a team that wants to go on a long run, you can't be bottom 10 in the playoffs and then make it far. Cal Palmeri is one of the best power play guys in the league.

I think you look at his stats. They're right up there with like just ridiculous. Steven Stamcoast, Austin Matthews, guys like that, Kyle Palmeri is really good on the power play. I think if he can do one thing for the Islanders and that score power play goals or help them score power play goals, that team goes from, well, they're a good team, but I doubt they're going to make a really, really deep run to all of a sudden. Could they be the favorites to come out of that division in the playoffs?

I definitely think at 14 to 1 odds, the Islanders are a team that I would look at right now. What about you guys? I think that's, yeah, that's a good one. Although, again, like Ian said, man, that whole division just loaded up. And it was just kind of like, yeah, you're looking at it going, I'm not sure that anybody really separated themselves. I found the and the other big piece of this for me is some of these teams that you expected to do something that didn't. And that maybe, probably not in terms of the future odds, but it was almost baked into how we viewed some of these teams.

I know personally, for the last month, I've been looking at the Winnipeg Jets going, well, once they land that big blue liner, I mean, they're going to be right there with the Leafs and the Oilers and maybe beyond. And then it just didn't happen. And maybe it was, maybe Mattias Echholm was going to be that guy. And then he comes off the market. But, you know, they don't end up doing anything.

I mean, Carolina is the other one where you're kind of looking at Tampa loads up a little bit, or at least adds David Savard. Florida brings in a bunch of guys. Carolina kind of stands Pat, and you're just sitting there going, do we shift around our expectations a little bit? I mean, I think, and this is me being the Maple Leafs Homer that I am, there's a part of me that feels like the absolute best news for the Maple Leafs on the deadline was not Nick Felino, it wasn't David Rich.

It was the Winnipeg Jets not going out and getting a big blue liner that you're going to then run up against in the first or second round. So yeah, that stuff shifts around. And obviously it doesn't, it's not like you're going to go and bet on the Winnipeg Jets to not win the Stanley Cup because they don't offer that. But it will be interesting to see if you see those odds come down a little bit, which might suggest that some people were trying to get ahead of the line a bit and get in before the deal happens on some better numbers and then end up getting left holding the bag.

Yeah, I could not agree more with you on Winnipeg. That was one of the two teams that I was going to that I was going to talk talk about. And like you mentioned, that blue liner was the piece. And they've got great goaltending. And Toronto gets significantly better with filigno. And you mentioned you can't bet Winnipeg to not win the cup. But if you were thinking of betting them going into this deadline, you're not going to anymore. And maybe if you're thinking about betting Toronto, now is the time to bet Toronto because. Or you nudge up the oilers a little bit. Right. Because that's probably the first round matchup. And maybe you like it a little bit better right now. Exactly. And then the other team I would say maybe to shy away from,

well, to definitely shy away from is back to that East Eastern Conference. I think the Philadelphia Flyers are a team that had so much success last year. They've struggled this year, but I think most hockey people think like, yeah, the goaltending has led in way too many goals, but this team could get it going. Like, I still had some belief. And they're at 66 to 1 odds. Like, that's a real long shot. Like, we're just talking about Winnipeg. They're 22 to 1. The Islanders are 14 to 1. The flyers are 66 to 1. I think they were a team that if they would have done anything at the deadline, it would have been like, maybe that's the team to take a flyer on to use that. But not only did they not get anyone, they sold. And they didn't sell major pieces.

It's not like they dismantled their team. They traded Eric Gustavson to Montreal and they traded Michael Raffel to Washington. But just the fact that the front office sold, just I feel like the feeling in Philadelphia is there's not a whole lot of confidence from the inside that this team can do anything. So if you were someone like me that was maybe looking at them as a potential team to bet on that's kind of outside the playoffs right now, but we watch hockey so many times, how many times as a team that isn't in the playoff position at the trade deadline sneaks in, and then they go on a run and they win three series. That was like if you're looking for one of those teams to place a bet on, I think the flyers were maybe a team that you were looking at

because the talent on that team and all of a sudden, the way they acted at the deadline, I am totally backed off. Yeah, I just think it's the goaltending there, right? Like it just is completely submarine everything that they were probably planning on doing and all their aspirations come to springtime. Jesse Granger, as always, we appreciate you. Coming back here for a little Granger things, listen, have a great week, and we'll hit you up again next week. Yeah, thanks for having me, guys. Thanks, Jesse. All right, as always, we thank Jesse Granger for his Granger things visit.

Sean, we're going to open up the mailbag here. I got a question from Chris about power plays in overtime, but before we get to that, A couple of weeks ago, I think we were talking about quirky rules and different things. And you mentioned there's a very rare possibility that somehow a team can get a three-minute power play. And guess what? It happened this week because the fans watching that Nashville game, was it Nashville Tampa? Anyway, Nashville, Tampa, they tweeted at you, hey, three-minute power play alert. So just for the benefit of our listeners who might not know exactly how on earth you get,

because you think of a power play as either being two minutes, four minutes, five minutes, how do we get a three minute power play? So it's a scenario that is, as you say, exceedingly rare. And it happens when one team gets a major and one team gets a minor. And that on its own doesn't happen very often. But it does happen sometimes. But just that on its own doesn't put a three-minute power play on the board in most circumstances, because what would happen is in a normal situation, if one team gets two and one team gets five, both of those penalties start at the same time. So you would eventually get a three-minute power play, assuming there were no other calls, but it doesn't go up on the board right away.

You don't see three minutes under the penalty clock. But it will happen at the end of a game. If there's less than two minutes left in regulation, then that's where they shifted around because they don't want a team to have to wait on a power play that they could end up deciding the game. And I wrote about it a couple weeks ago and I was talking about weird rules from the rulebook. At the time, I couldn't remember having ever actually seen it, a few people reached out and said, I remember seeing this in 94.

I remember seeing this in 2002. Sure enough, two weeks after I write it, it happens. And yeah, I wasn't watching the game, but my Twitter feed suddenly blows up, which I love, by the way. I love every time I write about some weird thing, people just get it in their heads that they have to alert me whenever it happens. And I'm all in on that. Every time there's a horn of doom during a game, I get inundated with people letting me know about it. And maybe this will be the new thing. And hey, fingers crossed, maybe this is the start and some of those other weird things in the world.

Maybe we're going to see a suspension for an illegal stick. maybe we're going to see a penalty shot for too many men. Like maybe this will happen too. And this incredibly weird season is just going to keep serving up bizarre stuff. But yeah, we got the ultra rare three-minute power play in Nashville. And yeah, people let me know about it. Speaking of power plays, Chris has an idea. And again, we're getting into our email bag here.

You can hit us up at The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. And also, you can also leave as a voicemail too. We love it when you do that. 845, 445, 845-8459. So here's the email that comes in from Chris, Sean, and it's about overtime power plays. Just to just so everyone's clear,

overtimes are three-on-three, but if a team takes a penalty in overtime, they go to a four-on-three format. So you get to add an extra skater on the ice and your power play is four-on-three. Chris is wondering, guys, I'm curious, do you think overtime power plays would work better if it was a three on two?

You could only make them maybe one minute long as the advantage would be more substantial than normal. Or maybe would you guys be on board with all penalties in overtime turning into penalty shots? Personally, I just hate the current format. If you want three on three overtime, I think you need to commit to it. Also, another sidebar here. If during regulation time, a team receives a penalty while already down two men, so it's already five on three, what do you think of just awarding a penalty shot followed by killing the remainder of the previous two penalties? Now, we have actually talked about this exact scenario, right? The five on three,

taking a penalty and what happens. So let's start with that. Yeah. So what he's suggesting is already in the rulebook for certain things. The including what we talked about was the intentional too many men. You can't just send extra guys over the boards when it's five on three. I think to be honest, it's probably a moot point because how often do you ever see a five on three late in a close game, right? This is, this is classic game management by the officials. They almost never let that happen, let alone to then have them call a third penalty. It would be pretty, pretty strange. Although you do wonder about it. Like there is a, you remember in the NFL a couple years ago, there was that play where it was, it was late in the game, and one team just had their offensive line tackle the defenders. It was just bled. It was just blatant holding and it was like, what are they doing?

This is crazy. And it turned out that because it was an offensive penalty, it couldn't end the game. Or it could end the game. And so they were actually being smart to just commit as many penalties as they could on the last play of the game. You wonder why that wouldn't happen in hockey. If it's five on three and there's two minutes left and you know, you're not, you can't go down five on two. You wonder if a coach wouldn't say, hey, guys, just get out there and tackle guys. You know, do whatever you need to do. Just don't, don't, the rulebook doesn't apply anymore. we can't go any more short-handed than we already are.

I guess what Chris is describing here would take that out of the, out of play, and maybe we should have something like that. But the reality is what would actually happen is it would be five on three. There'd be some cheap puck over the glass penalty, which is the only thing that ever gets called late in games anyways. And then we'd end up having a penalty shot and everybody would melt down. Okay.

And before we get to his other part of the question, I just want to throw this out. Does every fan base, is every fan base convinced that their team can't score a, a five on three power play? Yes. I believe that's one of the golden rules in hockey is everyone's like, oh my God, here we go again. We can't score in a five on three.

And I feel like it's everybody. Yeah, it's funny. I was having this conversation with somebody this week where it was like the things that every fan base thinks is unique to our team. We all think that X players coming back always score against our team. We always think that rookies in their first game always score against our team. And yeah, that's another one. Yeah.

We can't score on five on three. We should, uh, it's, it's, uh, it's a mess. And when of course,

the right answer is that it's only the Leafs that can't score five on three. It's my team. Exactly. Your teams are fine. Yeah. All right. So the original question I guess from Chris is, okay.

So the overtime power play, uh, format, Chris is saying instead of going four on three, what about three on two? But you do it only for one minute because the advantage might be a little bit more significant. Yeah.

So, I mean, So it's really two ideas in one here. The first is going to three on two, which, I mean, the argument against it is it would look ridiculous. And in theory, if you're going to go to three on two, that would mean if they committed another penalty, then you go, what, three on one? You send one guy out there to kill a penalty and that it would just look silly. The argument against that argument is three on three already looks kind of silly, but it's the fun kind of silly and everybody seems to enjoy it. So why not just fully embrace it?

We've all been there, right? Like you watch 60 minutes of five-on-five hockey. You go to overtime. There's a power play. They don't score in the power play. The guy comes out of the penalty box, and it's four-on-four, and you're sitting there like, oh, come on, what if four-on-four? It's so crowded out there.

Get these guys off the ice. I want to get back to three-on-three. So, you know, I don't hate that idea, but I understand why the NHL doesn't want to do it. The other one that he mentions, and this is interesting, because I hear this every now and then, is that we should go to one-minute power plays in overtime. with the idea being that, you know, two minutes, when you've only got five minutes of three on three,

carving a two minute chunk out of that just seems like so much. And maybe it would encourage the officials to call a little bit more because they wouldn't feel like they were putting one team short-handed for half the overtime. I don't mind that idea. I think that's all right. And maybe for certain penalties you say it's going to be a minute, but other ones, if it's an aggressive penalty, you can't cross-check a guy over the head or something. But, you know, for some of the stuff, maybe you go to one minute.

Yeah, I could see something like that. And, you know, I don't, do I want to see three on one power plays? Maybe not all the time. I'd like to see it once. I'd love to see Patrice Bergeron out there killing. I mean, he'd probably do fine. But anybody else would just be spinning around out there. It would get kind of funny to watch.

But hey, we're in the entertainment business. Maybe give it a try. Hey, and you know what? I think the most entertaining part of our show, the thing I love the most is this week in hockey history. because there's always something for us to sink our teeth into and have some fun. So a couple of things here that happened this week in hockey history. We'll go back to April the 12th, 1945. And Toronto Maple Leaf's goalie, Frank McCool,

post his third consecutive shutout in the Stanley Cup final. What I love about stories like this is especially like around the wartime, right? In both, in the National Hockey League, right, in 1945, you get these stories of players who are kind of just come out of nowhere and they have an imprint. like Frank McCool, three straight Stanley Cup final shutouts is unbelievable. Yeah, I mean, that's, that's amazing. And it's, yeah, if you asked the typical hockey fan, hey, who holds the record for Stanley Cup final shutouts?

You think of all the legendary names that played so many, made so many appearances for the Cup. And yeah, Frank McCool of all people. And in fact, I think is one of the very few guys to have three shutouts, even in a playoff series. let alone in the final or consecutive. I know Felix Potvin did it. You had a piece this week where you met Patrick Lulim of all people. The guy who is considered the choke artist,

the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. Patrick Lulim is one of those guys right up there in the record book too. Okay. But I feel like we can't just gloss over the name Frank McCool. We need to just lean into this for a second, especially because I think a lot of listeners would be like, who is Frank McCool? So here's my fun exercise.

Love it if you, if you guys and girls listening to us, if you tweet at us, we'd love to know. If you could go back and rename yourself based on any name in hockey history, would you take Frank McCool? Or is that too much pressure for you? Like, hey, it's Frank McCool. Like, you kind of have to have a certain era about you. Like, are you going to take Frank McCool as your name? You know what? I like that one.

I got a few other candidates for you. Let me throw out there as names that. But, you know, maybe not today, but in my younger days, I could have, I could have done worse than being known as Bob Beers. That's a pretty good name, right? You know, the classic Stu Grimson, that's a good one. Darren Rumble, not a great player, but that's a great name. That's a great hockey name. But I'll give you my number one pick, and it's funny that this came up this week because this is actually in the, my grab bag that goes up tomorrow.

This is this week's obscure player, so I'm spoiling it a little bit. but as a player in the 60s and 70s, his name was Bart Crashly. How great is that? Bart Crash. Tell me he was great on the four check. He was, well, he wasn't great on much of anything. He didn't play all that much, but he was Bart Crashley. He was in big trade.

He was in the Marcel D'Aunt trade. So, you know, I was going to say if you know the name, that might be where it's from, but it's not. You know the name because it's Mark Crashly. And the great thing about it is if you go Google the guy, he looks exactly like what you would think a bark crashly would look like. He looks like a, he looks like the stunt man from a 70s movie with the mustache and everything. It's just,

it's fantastic. I think if I got to be anything, I want to be bark crashly for a day. You know what I'm going to go with? And I promise you that this name, I know you're going to laugh. And I, my whole goal of this is to make you chuckle.

Okay? If I could go back and rename myself anything, I'm going to be Dave Snuggarood. Yes. It's a quality name. Dave Snuggaroo. Yeah. Snuggs.

This is my nickname. Snuggy. Snuggie. Dave Snuggaroo. That's a good one. Yeah. Oh, man. Anyway, we'd love it if you tweet at us.

You can go back and rename yourself based on any name in hockey history. What do you pick? And all right, also, this week in hockey history, Sean, Tammu Salani in his rookie year in 1993, April the 15th, 1993, scored his 76th and final goal of his rookie campaign. Here's the question I want to ask you, because I think everybody looks at Wayne Gretzky's 92 goal campaign and says that's the most kind of unbreakable record maybe in hockey in a single season. Is there an argument to be made that Tammu Salani's 76 goal rookie season is actually a more

unbreakable record than Gretzky's 92 goal campaign? Yeah, I think there absolutely is. I mean, when you think about that team of salani season, everybody pictures the record breaking goal when he broke by Bossi's record and he throws the glove up and he shoots it out of the air. But that was like his, what, 53rd, 54th goal of the year? He had 20 plus more goals to go after that. I mean, he didn't break the record.

He just destroyed it. And, I mean, the only scenario where I could ever imagine somebody getting close to the record would be somebody who was a pro in the KHL or somewhere established himself as a real superstar and then came over at like 24, 25 right in their prime, which is. Kind of what happened with Timuselani, he had been like, this was four years after he had been drafted. So he had some experience at a high level. But even then, I mean, I looked it up. And here's since that season, so since 1993, since Timoslani has the 76 goals, do you know how many times the top two rookies in the league have combined to score more than 76 goals? Combined? Combined.

Oh, my goodness. Take one and two add them up. Oh, man, that's a great. Okay. So I'm thinking Austin Matthews, Patrick Liney? Well, you know what? Austin Matthews, Patrick Liney tied it. So they got the 76?

Matthews got 40, Linye had 36. And then I... So they tied it, didn't beat it. I'm thinking 0506, Ovechkin and Crosby? Ovechkin and Crosby combined for 91 goals. That is the only time since 1993. That's combined. two best rookies.

So, I mean, if you're talking unbreakable records, I mean, nobody's come close to Gretzky 92 other than Gretzky and, and, and, you know, Brett Hall, I guess, got a little bit close, but certainly in the last 25 years, no one's come close. But, I mean, this would be like if nobody else in the league was even getting to 40 goals. And the top two scorers in the league are scoring more than 92.

It's the fact that nobody is even, even the two best guys, one sitting on the other one's shoulders, can't get to team of Salani. I just, again, unless it was like an Artemmy Panarin times 10 situation where a guy came over with a ton of experience and was already an established superstar. And even then, in today's league, I just can't imagine. I can't imagine somebody getting 76 goals, period, let alone doing it as a rookie. It's unfathomable. Yeah. All right.

Hey, listen, Sean, this was a ton of fun. The hour just flew by. Enjoy the weekend and we'll do this again next Thursday. Right on. Sounds good. All right. Hey, for Bart Crashley, I'm Dave Snuggaroo. All right. But thanks for joining us, everybody.

We'll get you again next week. Again, you can leave us an email at The Athletic Hockey Show at gbell.com. That voicemail again. It is 845445-8459. I'll be right back at it on Monday with Haley Zelvian. And a reminder, if you're not a subscriber to The Athletic, you can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show.